Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 41 references

HETERQA shows current retrievers still recover only a fraction of records that must jointly satisfy five heterogeneous sources.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 05:20 UTC pith:4NYBJRDY

load-bearing objection Useful five-source record-retrieval benchmark with public data; hardness claims are real enough to use, but gold labels rest partly on LLM/VLM thresholds. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03028 v1 pith:4NYBJRDY submitted 2026-07-03 cs.IR

HETERQA: Benchmarking Record Retrieval over Multiple Heterogeneous Sources

Yaodong Su , Hanchang Li , Quanqing Xu , Chuanhui Yang , Yixiang Fang This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords record retrievalheterogeneous sourcesquestion answeringbenchmarkhybrid retrievalmissing-value recoverymulti-source QAagentic retrieval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

HETERQA is an 857-question benchmark for retrieving whole business records when a natural-language query imposes constraints drawn from relational tables, reviews, photos, spatial data, and a knowledge graph at once. The authors build each question answer-first: they start from relational field constraints, recover additional valid records whose incomplete table fields are evidenced in other sources, add source-specific constraints, then keep the question only after cross-source verification and contradiction filtering leave a non-empty gold set. Human checks support the questions as largely natural, diverse, and practical. Under shared metrics, hybrid retrieval reaches the best Recall@10 near 33 percent and Self-RAG the best MRR@10 near 25 percent, while sparse, dense, late-interaction, and agentic systems all remain far from saturating the task. The paper therefore presents HETERQA as a hard, high-quality testbed for multi-source record retrieval and as evidence that existing methods leave substantial room for improvement.

Core claim

Existing QA and retrieval benchmarks cover at most three sources and ignore missing-value recovery, so they understate the difficulty of returning records that must satisfy every constraint in a heterogeneous bundle. HETERQA closes that gap with 857 verified Yelp-based questions over five sources, and the evaluated sparse, dense, hybrid, late-interaction, and agentic methods all recover only a limited share of the verified answer sets.

What carries the argument

Answer-driven construction with missing-value recovery: initialize candidates via relational-field constraints, enrich them by recovering incomplete fields from text, image, and knowledge-graph evidence, instantiate additional source-specific constraints, then retain a question only after cross-source support checks and contradiction filtering produce a non-empty verified answer set.

Load-bearing premise

The gold answer sets depend on language- and vision-model support judgments plus a fixed contradiction threshold; if those automated filters systematically mislabel which records truly satisfy the question, the ranking metrics no longer measure real multi-source correctness.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a stratified sample of questions with independent human verification of the gold record sets, then re-score the same hybrid and Self-RAG systems: if Recall@10 and MRR@10 rise sharply under the human gold, the claim that current methods are far from saturating the task weakens; if the gold sets and low scores hold, the claim stands.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Hybrid fusion of sparse and dense signals recovers more verified multi-source records than dense or late-interaction retrieval alone.
  • Agentic methods can improve early ranking metrics but do not solve recall and incur large latency costs.
  • Questions that combine spatial constraints with knowledge-graph patterns remain especially hard for current systems.
  • Downstream generators still struggle to select the correct verified record set even when given top-30 retrieved candidates.
  • Benchmarks and systems that ignore incomplete relational fields will systematically exclude valid target records.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Progress may require explicit multi-source verification modules, not only stronger single-tower embeddings or longer agent loops.
  • The same answer-driven recipe could transfer to product catalogs or scientific entity records wherever fields are incomplete across modalities.
  • The low RAG selection scores suggest record-set selection under multi-source constraints is a separate bottleneck from retrieval itself.
  • Latency-aware designs that use sparse/dense hybrid indexing with selective tool calls may be more practical than long multi-turn agents for this task.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces HETERQA, a benchmark of 857 natural-language QA pairs for target-record retrieval over five heterogeneous sources—relational tables, text documents, image repositories, spatial databases, and knowledge graphs—instantiated on Yelp business records. Construction is answer-driven: relational-field constraints initialize an answer set, missing-value recovery expands candidates from non-relational sources, source-specific constraints are instantiated and cross-verified, and contradiction detection plus limited human review produce verified answer sets V*_H. The authors report human ratings of question naturalness, diversity, and practicality on a stratified sample of 200 questions, release the dataset and code, and evaluate sparse, dense, hybrid, late-interaction, and agentic retrievers under shared Hit/Recall/MRR metrics. Empirically, hybrid retrieval with Llama and reranking reaches 32.78 Recall@10 and Self-RAG reaches 25.26 MRR@10, which the authors interpret as evidence that current methods remain far from saturating five-source record retrieval.

Significance. If the verified answer sets are sufficiently reliable, HETERQA fills a clear gap relative to prior multi-source QA/retrieval benchmarks (Table 1), which cover at most three sources and typically omit missing-value recovery and full-collection target-record ranking. The answer-driven workflow, explicit missing-value recovery, public Hugging Face/GitHub release, and broad baseline suite (including hybrid fusion, ColBERT/ColPali, ReAct, and Self-RAG) are concrete strengths that make the resource usable as a testbed. Source-combination heatmaps and the RAG record-selection study further surface where methods fail (e.g., spatial–KG subsets and generator-side selection). The contribution is therefore primarily empirical and infrastructural rather than theoretical; its lasting value hinges on gold-label quality and on how far the Yelp instantiation generalizes.

major comments (4)
  1. §3 Steps 3–5 and Table 2: the central hardness claim (hybrid Recall@10 32.78; Self-RAG MRR@10 25.26) treats V*_H as gold, but human validation rates only question naturalness/diversity/practicality on 200 items—not whether retained or discarded records correctly satisfy all constraints in q. Membership in V*_H is decided largely by LLM/VLM support judgments (llm_judge_threshold=0.7), embedding/rerank thresholds, and contradiction ratios with τc=0.15 (Appendix B.2), with manual review only for unresolved cases. Without a human audit of answer-set precision/recall (or inter-annotator agreement on a stratified sample of (q,r) pairs), reported ceilings may partly reflect label conservatism or judge noise rather than irreducible retrieval difficulty. A load-bearing revision is a quantified answer-set validation study and, if needed, relabeling.
  2. Appendix B.2 and Table 6: construction depends on several free thresholds (contradiction_ratio_thres=0.15, text/image coarse and rerank thresholds, recovery top_k=300, judge confidence 0.7) with no sensitivity analysis of how V*_H size or baseline metrics change under plausible alternatives. Because missing-value recovery and cross-source verification are advertised as defining features, the paper should show that the “challenging but high-quality” conclusion is stable under threshold perturbation, or else report confidence intervals / alternative gold sets.
  3. §4.1 and Observation 7: spatial constraints are evaluated by embedding location metadata inside serialized relational fields rather than with a dedicated spatial index or geo operators at retrieval time, while agentic methods alone receive an explicit Geo_Filter tool (Table 9). This asymmetry weakens the claim that spatial–KG subsets are intrinsically hard for standard retrievers; low scores may partly measure representation choice. Either equip non-agentic baselines with comparable spatial operators, or reframe the spatial results as a serialization baseline and qualify Observation 7 accordingly.
  4. §1, Table 1, and §6: the paper positions HETERQA as a comprehensive five-source record-retrieval benchmark, yet it is a single-domain Yelp instantiation with 857 pairs and average |V*_H|≈2.3. That scale is usable, but claims about “emerging systems” and extensibility should be tempered until at least one additional domain or a larger held-out construction pass is shown, or until the limitations section more sharply bounds external validity. Extending the workflow is asserted but not demonstrated.
minor comments (7)
  1. §5 Conclusion: duplicate wording “Source-combination and RAG analyses analyses further show…”.
  2. Table 3 notes and §4.1: ColPali has no w/ R column and near-zero scores; briefly state whether page rendering (Figure 7) was tuned or is an off-the-shelf stress test so readers do not over-interpret the late-interaction comparison.
  3. Figure 3 heatmaps: color scales are clipped at ±15 / ±31; state clipping explicitly in the caption body (not only the legend note) and consider reporting absolute subset Recall@10 in an appendix table for readability.
  4. §2.2: typo “hterogeneous” → “heterogeneous”.
  5. Table 1 and related work: briefly clarify how HETERQA’s record-level ranking task differs from MMQA’s question-specific multimodal contexts so the “five sources” novelty is not conflated with multimodal QA context packing.
  6. Appendix A KG construction: report a small human check of feature extraction/canonicalization quality (beyond redundancy score), since KG constraints enter both construction and subset analysis.
  7. §4.4 RAG setup: Macro-F1 is appropriate, but also report exact-set-match rates (mentioned in Appendix E) in the main table so the gap between retrieval Recall@10 and generator selection is fully transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation circularity: empirical benchmark construction and evaluation; residual model-family overlap is not a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

HETERQA is a dataset-construction and retrieval-evaluation paper, not a first-principles derivation. The central claim (hybrid Recall@10 32.78, Self-RAG MRR@10 25.26, methods far from saturating) is an empirical measurement of ranked lists against construction-time verified sets V*_H. Construction (Steps 1–5, Appendix B) initializes relational constraints, recovers missing values, instantiates source constraints H, filters support sets Vh via embedding/rerank/LLM-VLM judges (thresholds in Table 6), applies contradiction ratios τc=0.15, and retains non-empty V*_H before verbalizing q. Evaluation (Section 4, Algorithm 1) runs independent sparse/dense/hybrid/late-interaction/agentic pipelines on the released 857 pairs and reports standard IR metrics. Appendix B explicitly states construction models are separate from Section 4 baselines. There is no equation that defines a quantity in terms of itself, no parameter fitted to a subset then re-reported as a prediction of a near-identical quantity, no uniqueness theorem imported from overlapping authors, and no ansatz smuggled via self-citation. Human validation (Table 2) and contradiction detection are quality checks, not circular closures of a proof. Minor residual risk that Qwen-family models appear in both construction (qwen3-embedding/reranker) and some evaluation branches does not make the reported scores equal to the construction inputs by definition; it is a validity/label-noise concern, not circularity under the stated patterns. Score 1 reflects only that residual ecosystem overlap, not a load-bearing circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

As an empirical benchmark paper, HETERQA rests less on free mathematical parameters than on construction axioms: Yelp as a proxy for multi-source records, answer-driven sampling, automated recovery/verification thresholds, and human ratings as quality evidence. The main invented artifact is the benchmark itself plus a review-derived feature graph used as one source.

free parameters (6)
  • contradiction_ratio_thres
    Records are dropped from the gold set when text or image contradiction ratio exceeds 0.15; this threshold directly shapes V*_H.
  • llm_judge_threshold
    Support-set judgments keep only LLM/VLM decisions with confidence >= 0.7.
  • text_coarse_thres / text_rerank_thres
    Text recovery and verification use coarse and rerank cutoffs 0.65 and 0.6.
  • image_coarse_thres / image_reranker_thres
    Photo recovery and verification use coarse and rerank cutoffs 0.65 and 0.25.
  • recovery/search depth top_k=300
    Missing-value recovery and support checks retrieve top-300 candidates before filtering.
  • RRF k=60 and branch recall depth 3k
    Evaluation fusion and recall depth are fixed design choices that affect reported rankings.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption A correct retrieved item is a whole record whose source bundle jointly satisfies every constraint in the question, not an isolated passage/image/table hit.
    Stated in the introduction as the formal task definition for heterogeneous record retrieval.
  • domain assumption Yelp business records with relational fields, reviews/tips, photos, locations, and a constructed feature graph are a representative instantiation of multi-source records.
    The entire benchmark is built on the Yelp Open Dataset and a review-derived KG.
  • ad hoc to paper Missing relational field values can be recovered from text, image, and KG evidence without introducing systematic false positives after contradiction filtering.
    Step 1 missing-value recovery is a core construction choice distinguishing HETERQA from prior benchmarks.
  • ad hoc to paper LLM/VLM relevance and contradiction judgments, plus limited manual review, are accurate enough to define gold answer sets.
    Steps 3–5 and Appendix B.2 make automated judges load-bearing for label creation.
  • domain assumption Human non-negative rates on naturalness/diversity/practicality for 200 sampled questions indicate overall question quality.
    Quality certification follows the STARK-style protocol reported in Table 2.
invented entities (2)
  • HETERQA benchmark (857 QA pairs over five sources) independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a public testbed for multi-source record retrieval and missing-value recovery.
    The paper’s primary contribution is this constructed dataset and evaluation suite.
  • Feature-centric heterogeneous KG G from Yelp reviews/tips no independent evidence
    purpose: Supply KG source constraints such as attribute and collaborative feature patterns.
    Appendix A describes extracting and canonicalizing feature nodes linked to users and businesses; the graph is construction-specific rather than a pre-existing public KG.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 26496 in / 3496 out tokens · 24527 ms · 2026-07-12T05:20:54.114370+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In emerging systems (e.g., social media and e-commerce platforms), data records are often drawn from heterogeneous sources, such as relational tables, text documents, image repositories, spatial databases, and knowledge graphs. Accordingly, retrieving target records for question-answering (QA) tasks requires us to jointly exploit these heterogeneous sources. However, most existing benchmarks are constructed from individual sources, and only a very few recent benchmarks have considered two or three sources. To alleviate this issue, we introduce HETERQA, a comprehensive benchmark with 857 QA pairs for record retrieval over five heterogeneous sources. HETERQA instantiates this setting with Yelp business records, each of which is grounded by multiple sources. We build HETERQA in an answer-driven manner: candidate records are first initialized with record-field constraints, then enriched through heterogeneous sources, and finally cross-verified across required sources before the natural-language question is retained. We validate the benchmark through contradiction detection and human validation, and further evaluate sparse, dense, hybrid, late-interaction, and agentic retrievers under the same metrics. The results show that HETERQA is challenging: hybrid retrieval achieves the strongest Recall@10, Self-RAG achieves the best MRR@10, and all evaluated methods remain far from saturating the benchmark. These findings indicate that HETERQA provides an effective testbed for record retrieval over heterogeneous sources and leaves substantial room for future retrieval methods. The benchmark dataset and source code are publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/hanchang02/HeterQA and https://github.com/hanchang02/HeterQA, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03028 by Chuanhui Yang, Hanchang Li, Quanqing Xu, Yaodong Su, Yixiang Fang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative questions from HETERQA. Our work. We introduce HETERQA, a benchmark with 857 QA pairs for record retrieval over five heterogeneous sources, and considering the missing-value recovery. We instantiate HETERQA with the Yelp business record collection R1 . Particularly, each record contains 79 relational fields that are from the source of a relational table, and 4 other fields that are from the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Answer-driven dataset construction workflow. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Source-combination heatmaps for Recall@10. Panel (a) reports the gain from reranking; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Agentic retrieval quality under w/o R as the maximum number of turns changes. Panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The text contradiction audit prompt. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The visual contradiction audit prompt. C Human Validation and Query-Diversity Metrics We compute the query-diversity metrics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example ColPali input rendered from one Yelp record. Retrieved pages are collapsed back [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The photo relevance judgment prompt used to filter uninformative photos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The semantic relevance judgment prompt used to filter irrelevant reviews. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The strict feature extraction prompt utilized in the pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Self-rag: Learn- ing to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-rag: Learn- ing to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Llama-embed-nemotron-8b: A universal text embedding model for multilingual and cross-lingual tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07025, 2025

    Yauhen Babakhin, Radek Osmulski, Ronay Ak, Gabriel Moreira, Mengyao Xu, Benedikt Schifferer, Bo Liu, and Even Oldridge. Llama-embed-nemotron-8b: A universal text embedding model for multilingual and cross-lingual tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07025, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Wenhu Chen, Ming-Wei Chang, Eva Schlinger, William Yang Wang, and William W. Cohen. Open question answering over tables and text.CoRR, abs/2010.10439, 2020. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2010.10439

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Hybridqa: A dataset of multi-hop question answering over tabular and textual data

    Wenhu Chen, Hanwen Zha, Zhiyu Chen, Wenhan Xiong, Hong Wang, and William Yang Wang. Hybridqa: A dataset of multi-hop question answering over tabular and textual data. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1026–1036, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Reciprocal rank fusion outper- forms condorcet and individual rank learning methods

    Gordon V Cormack, Charles LA Clarke, and Stefan Buettcher. Reciprocal rank fusion outper- forms condorcet and individual rank learning methods. InProceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 758–759, 2009

    2009

  6. [6]

    Colpali: Efficient document retrieval with vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01449, 2024

    Manuel Faysse, Hugues Sibille, Tony Wu, Bilel Omrani, Gautier Viaud, Céline Hudelot, and Pierre Colombo. Colpali: Efficient document retrieval with vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01449, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Gemma 4 31B model card, 2026

    Google. Gemma 4 31B model card, 2026. URL https://huggingface.co/google/ gemma-4-31B

    2026

  8. [8]

    Bird-interact: Re-imagining text-to-sql evaluation for large language models via lens of dynamic interactions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05318, 2025

    Nan Huo, Xiaohan Xu, Jinyang Li, Per Jacobsson, Shipei Lin, Bowen Qin, Binyuan Hui, Xiaolong Li, Ge Qu, Shuzheng Si, et al. Bird-interact: Re-imagining text-to-sql evaluation for large language models via lens of dynamic interactions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05318, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension

    Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel S Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. InProceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1601–1611, 2017

    2017

  10. [10]

    Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. InProceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 6769–6781, 2020

    2020

  11. [11]

    Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextual- ized late interaction over bert

    Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextual- ized late interaction over bert. InProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, pages 39–48, 2020

    2020

  12. [12]

    Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453–466, 2019

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, et al. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:453–466, 2019

    2019

  13. [13]

    Spider 2.0: Evaluating language models on real-world enterprise text-to-sql workflows.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07763, 2024

    Fangyu Lei, Jixuan Chen, Yuxiao Ye, Ruisheng Cao, Dongchan Shin, Hongjin Su, Zhaoqing Suo, Hongcheng Gao, Wenjing Hu, Pengcheng Yin, et al. Spider 2.0: Evaluating language models on real-world enterprise text-to-sql workflows.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07763, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Can llm already serve as a database in- terface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls

    Jinyang Li, Binyuan Hui, Ge Qu, Jiaxi Yang, Binhua Li, Bowen Li, Bailin Wang, Bowen Qin, Ruiying Geng, Nan Huo, Xuanhe Zhou, Ma Chenhao, Guoliang Li, Kevin Chang, Fei Huang, Reynold Cheng, and Yongbin Li. Can llm already serve as a database in- terface? a big bench for large-scale database grounded text-to-sqls. In A. Oh, T. Nau- mann, A. Globerson, K. Sa...

    2023

  15. [15]

    Qwen3-vl-embedding and qwen3-vl-reranker: A unified framework for state-of-the-art multimodal retrieval and ranking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04720, 2026

    Mingxin Li, Yanzhao Zhang, Dingkun Long, Keqin Chen, Sibo Song, Shuai Bai, Zhibo Yang, Pengjun Xie, An Yang, Dayiheng Liu, et al. Qwen3-vl-embedding and qwen3-vl-reranker: A unified framework for state-of-the-art multimodal retrieval and ranking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.04720, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks

    Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, et al. Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Te...

    2021

  17. [17]

    Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents, February 2026

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents, February 2026. URL https: //qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5

    2026

  18. [18]

    Now Publishers Inc, 2009

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza.The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond, volume 4. Now Publishers Inc, 2009

    2009

  19. [19]

    Multimodalqa: Complex question answering over text, tables and images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.06039, 2021

    Alon Talmor, Ori Yoran, Amnon Catav, Dan Lahav, Yizhong Wang, Akari Asai, Gabriel Ilharco, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Jonathan Berant. Multimodalqa: Complex question answering over text, tables and images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.06039, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    MultiHop-RAG: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries.CoRR, abs/2401.15391, 2024

    Yixuan Tang and Yi Yang. MultiHop-RAG: Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop queries.CoRR, abs/2401.15391, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.15391. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.15391 2024

  21. [21]

    Glm-4.5v and glm-4.1v-thinking: Towards versatile multimodal reasoning with scalable reinforcement learning, 2026

    V Team, Wenyi Hong, Wenmeng Yu, Xiaotao Gu, Guo Wang, Guobing Gan, Haomiao Tang, Jiale Cheng, Ji Qi, Junhui Ji, Lihang Pan, Shuaiqi Duan, Weihan Wang, Yan Wang, Yean Cheng, Zehai He, Zhe Su, Zhen Yang, Ziyang Pan, Aohan Zeng, Baoxu Wang, Bin Chen, Boyan Shi, Changyu Pang, Chenhui Zhang, Da Yin, Fan Yang, Guoqing Chen, Haochen Li, Jiale Zhu, Jiali Chen, Ji...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Beir: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models

    N Thakur, N Reimers, A Rücklé, A Srivastava, and I Gurevych. Beir: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. arxiv 2021.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Musique: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539–554, 2022

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Musique: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539–554, 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Uniir: Training and benchmarking universal multimodal information retrievers

    Cong Wei, Yang Chen, Haonan Chen, Hexiang Hu, Ge Zhang, Jie Fu, Alan Ritter, and Wenhu Chen. Uniir: Training and benchmarking universal multimodal information retrievers. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 387–404. Springer, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Stark: Benchmarking llm retrieval on textual and relational knowledge bases.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:127129–127153, 2024

    Shirley Wu, Shiyu Zhao, Michihiro Yasunaga, Kexin Huang, Kaidi Cao, Qian Huang, Vassilis N Ioannidis, Karthik Subbian, James Zou, and Jure Leskovec. Stark: Benchmarking llm retrieval on textual and relational knowledge bases.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:127129–127153, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Approximate nearest neighbor negative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.00808, 2020

    Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. Approximate nearest neighbor negative contrastive learning for dense text retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.00808, 2020. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. InProceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 2369–2380, 2018

    2018

  28. [28]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task

    Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. InProceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 3911–3921, 2018

    2018

  30. [30]

    Qwen3 embedding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176, 2025

    Yanzhao Zhang, Mingxin Li, Dingkun Long, Xin Zhang, Huan Lin, Baosong Yang, Pengjun Xie, An Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Junyang Lin, et al. Qwen3 embedding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    quiet ambiance

    Xinping Zhao, Xinshuo Hu, Zifei Shan, Shouzheng Huang, Yao Zhou, Xin Zhang, Zetian Sun, Zhenyu Liu, Dongfang Li, Xinyuan Wei, Youcheng Pan, Yang Xiang, Meishan Zhang, Haofen Wang, Jun Yu, Baotian Hu, and Min Zhang. Kalm-embedding-v2: Superior training techniques and data inspire a versatile embedding model, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506. 20923. 12 ...

    2025

  32. [32]

    Carefully analyze the photo and the query

  33. [33]

    Decide if the photo evidence is relevant and can potentially be used to answer the query

  34. [34]

    • 1 means the photo is highly relevant and likely contains information that can directly answer the query

    Output a confidence score between 0 and 1 (float), where: • 0 means the photo is completely irrelevant and cannot help answer the query. • 1 means the photo is highly relevant and likely contains information that can directly answer the query

  35. [35]

    can_answer

    The output MUST be in JSON format with the following structure: { "can_answer": boolean, // True if the photo can potentially help answer the query, False otherwise "confidence": float // A value between 0.0 and 1.0 indicating how likely the photo is useful for answering the query } Do not include any extra commentary or explanation. Just output the JSON....

  36. [36]

    Focus on semantic meaning rather than keyword matching

  37. [37]

    Ignore irrelevant details in the review (e.g., general descriptions unrelated to the query)

  38. [38]

    Consider the query’s intent: recommendations, complaints, comparisons, or factual inquiries

  39. [39]

    judgement

    Output a JSON object containing: •"judgement":"Yes"or"No"indicating relevance •"confidence" : a decimal score between 0 and 1 representing your confidence in the judgement

  40. [40]

    Confidence score should reflect: • 0.9-1.0: Clear and direct relevance/irrelevance • 0.7-0.89: Strong evidence but some ambiguity • 0.5-0.69: Moderate relevance with significant ambiguity • Below 0.5: Weak or unclear relevance

  41. [41]

    judgement

    Output only the JSON object with no additional explanations, headers, or text. Example-1: Input-Review: The hotel’s pool was closed for maintenance, and the staff didn’t inform us at check-in. The room was clean but the disappointment ruined our stay. Input-Query: Find hotels with well-maintained pools and responsive staff. Output:{ "judgement": "NO", "co...