Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.15624

Can Retrievers Find the Same Paper from Different Aspects? A Multi-Aspect Full-Paper Scientific Retrieval Benchmark

Yiyang Wei·Fang Guo·Qiji Zhou·Zhizhang Fu·Mengru Ding·Kai Yang·Yue Zhang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Scientific papers contain multiple searchable facets such as background, methods. However, many paper retrieval benchmarks merely evaluate individual query-paper relevance, while overlooking other facets of the same paper. To bridge this gap, we introduce MAPLE, an expert-validated benchmark for multi-aspect, full-paper retrieval that evaluates whether retrievers can consistently recover the same paper from queries targeting its motivation, method, and experimental findings. MAPLE contains 2,095 queries about recent ML and NLP papers, grounded in both textual and multimodal content. We further propose MAPLE-Synth, a retrieval-based in-context learning pipeline that leverages OpenReview discussions and human-written query exemplars to generate realistic queries reflecting researchers' interests in different aspects of a paper. Our expert validation shows that these queries are comparable in realism to human-written queries and highly relevant to the target papers. Experiments across lexical, scientific-domain, general-purpose text, and multimodal retrievers reveal a substantial gap between retrieving a paper from any one aspect and retrieving it from all aspects: the strongest model achieves 98.1% AnyAspect@20 but only 15.7% AllAspect@20. Experiment/result queries and table-referenced queries are particularly difficult across retrievers. Although multi-chunk aggregation improves multi-aspect paper retrieval, considerable failures persist. MAPLE provides a testbed for evaluating and developing retrievers that represent scientific papers more comprehensively.

Explore related subjects

cs.IR

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yiyang Wei, Fang Guo, Qiji Zhou, Zhizhang Fu, Mengru Ding, Kai Yang, Yue Zhang. 2026-08-16. Can Retrievers Find the Same Paper from Different Aspects? A Multi-Aspect Full-Paper Scientific Retrieval Benchmark. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15624

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Models Favor Recent Content? A Study on Recency Bias in LLM-Based Reranking

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in information systems, including being used as second-stage rerankers in information retrieval pipelines, yet their susceptibility to recency bias has received little attention. We investigate whether LLMs implicitly favour newer documents by prepending artificial publication dates to passages in the TREC Deep Learning passage retrieval collections in 2021 (DL21) and 2022 (DL22). Across seven models, GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-4, LLaMA-3 8B/70B, and Qwen-2.5 7B/72B, "fresh" passages are consistently promoted, shifting the Top-10's mean publication year forward by up to 4.78 years and moving individual items by as many as 95 ranks in our listwise reranking experiments. Although larger models attenuate the effect, none eliminate it. We also observe that the preference of LLMs between two passages with an identical relevance level can be reversed by up to 25% on average after date injection in our pairwise preference experiments. These findings provide quantitative evidence of a pervasive recency bias in LLMs and highlight the importance of effective bias-mitigation strategies.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

UniRec: Cross-stage Multi-Task Fusion with Preference Alignment for Cascaded Recommender Systems

Industrial recommender systems cascade stages with different objectives, feature spaces, and latency constraints. Optimizing pre-ranking and ranking separately induces cross-stage inconsistency: upstream models may filter out items preferred by downstream rankers, while independently tuned downstream fusion can offset upstream improvements. Most existing multi-task fusion methods target the ranking stage alone, and cross-stage methods often align with a downstream-derived score, leaving joint optimization of fusion modules across cascaded stages largely unexplored. We propose UniRec, a Unified Cross-stage Recommendation Fusion model. First, the two fusion agents partially share input embeddings in a single computation graph, allowing gradients from either stage to propagate through the shared representations. Second, a dual-axis preference alignment objective coordinates the two stages: horizontally, a compact aggregation term reorganizes dozens of pairwise objectives over heterogeneous prior signals into bidirectional preference evidence; vertically, a cross-stage consistency term transfers downstream pairwise preferences to the upstream fusion score. Third, we introduce attribute group-relative regularization, which computes relative advantages and normalizes policy updates within each attribute group, ensuring that uniformly promoting all items in a high-reward group provides no additional optimization gain. Offline experiments demonstrate UniRec consistently outperforms single-stage fusion and cross-stage coordination baselines; online A/B experiments show a 0.616% gain in app usage duration. UniRec has been fully deployed on the Kuaishou platform.

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Scaling Articulated Rationales for MLLM-based Recommendation

We presented SARA, an industrial framework that transforms sparse articulated user rationales into scalable recommendation signals. Its data engine curates questionnaire responses into SARA-HQ, providing explicit preference supervision for aligning SARA-7B through SFT and Quality-Refining DPO. This alignment extends rationale generation from $86{,}564$ questionnaire-covered authors to the full $10$M-author space. SARA-Ranker translates the generated positive and negative rationales into features for user--author interaction modeling and negative-feedback history modeling, connecting articulated reasons to production ranking. Evaluation on unseen authors demonstrates that SARA-7B generates more specific, relevant, and grounded rationales than the evaluated general-purpose MLLMs. On top of a strong industrial ranking baseline with multimodal features, separate online A/B tests show that positive-rationale integration increases watch time by $0.99\%$, while negative-rationale integration reduces Hate feedback by $8.16\%$. Daily refresh and more than $30$ days of production deployment further demonstrate the operational feasibility of the approach. These findings establish articulated rationales as a useful complement to behavioral and content signals, and demonstrate a practical role for MLLMs in scaling sparse human explanations into preference information that improves industrial recommendation.

cs.IR↗