Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

DynRank: Improving Passage Retrieval with Dynamic Zero-Shot Prompting Based on Question Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DynRank improves passage retrieval by generating a reranking prompt tailored to each question's fine-grained type, and it reports consistent gains over static-prompt baselines on NQ, TriviaQA, WebQuestions, and BEIR.

desk verdict DynRank is a plausible, cheap tweak on UPR—condition the question-generation prompt on a UIUC question-type label—but the evidence that the dynamic prompt is what helps is not actually delivered. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00600 v1 pith:7YPKX42Q submitted 2024-11-30 cs.CL

Abdelrahman Abdallah , Jamshid Mozafari , Bhawna Piryani , Mohammed M.Abdelgwad , Adam Jatowt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords passagererankingzero-shotpromptingquestionclassificationopen-domainansweringdynamicpromptsUPRBEIRgeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes DynRank, a passage-reranking method that replaces the fixed instruction used in zero-shot question-generation reranking with a prompt chosen dynamically from the question's type. A classifier, fine-tuned on the UIUC dataset, assigns each query a coarse and a fine-grained category, and a template fills those categories into a natural-language prompt. The reranking score remains the log-likelihood of the original question given the passage and the dynamic prompt, so the only change from the UPR baseline is the prompt itself. The paper reports that this change improves top-1, top-20, and top-100 retrieval accuracy on Natural Questions, TriviaQA, and WebQuestions, and raises the average BEIR nDCG@10 to 54.39, above UPR's 51.9 and RankGPT's 53.7. The implication is that a small, cheap classifier can steer a large language model's question generation more effectively than a hand-written static instruction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dynamic prompt generator: a fine-tuned RoBERTa question classifier trained on the UIUC dataset's 5 coarse and 50 fine-grained categories, paired with a template function $T$ that maps each pair of major and minor types $(l_{maj}, l_{min})$ to an instruction of the form 'Document: [passage]. The above Document is about {Lmaj} specially on {Lmin}, please write a question based on {Lmaj}.' This prompt is inserted before the passage when computing the conditional log-likelihood of the original question (Eq. 4), and the same pre-trained language model (e.g., T0-3B for open-domain QA, LLaMA v3.1 70B for BEIR) is used for scoring. The generator is what shifts the reranker from a static instruction to a per-question instruction, and it is the only component that changes between UPR and DynRank.

What would settle it

Compare DynRank head-to-head against UPR with the question-type labels replaced by random (or deliberately wrong) categories while keeping everything else identical; if reranking accuracy does not drop relative to true labels, the dynamic prompt is not the active ingredient. Alternatively, measure the classifier's accuracy on a sample of NQ test questions and check whether the categories align with the template's wording.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that conditioning the generation prompt on a question's semantic type improves zero-shot passage reranking. For each query $q$, a classifier $C$ returns major and minor types $(l_{maj}, l_{min})$, a template $T$ turns them into a prompt $p$, each passage $z_i$ is scored by $\log P(q \mid z_i, p)$, and the list is sorted by these scores (Eqs. 1–5). The paper reports consistent gains over UPR, which uses the same scoring but a static prompt: with BM25 retrieval, top-1 accuracy rises from 35.4% to 36.5% on NQ, from 55.7% to 58.2% on TriviaQA, and from 30.0% to 32.8% on WebQuestions, and the average BEIR nDCG@10 becomes 54.39 versus 51.9 for UPR and 53.7 for RankGPT. Because the dynamic prompt is the only difference from UPR, the paper attributes the improvements to the category-conditioned instruction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a question classifier trained on the UIUC dataset labels questions from NQ, TriviaQA, WebQ, and BEIR accurately enough, and with the right categories, that the template-filled prompt actually steers the language model's generation; the paper reports no classification accuracy on these target datasets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing UPR-style rerankers can adopt DynRank by inserting a question classifier and a template lookup; the scoring LLM and the retrieval pipeline stay unchanged.
  • Because the gains appear across three open-domain QA datasets and four BEIR tasks, question-type conditioning is not limited to trivia-style queries and transfers to heterogeneous retrieval domains.
  • The method is retriever-agnostic: improvements hold when the base retriever is BM25, Contriever, or DPR, so DynRank layers on top of both sparse and dense first-stage retrieval.
  • The BEIR results scale with the reranking model's size (LLaMA v3.1 70B over 7B/8B variants), suggesting the dynamic prompt gives larger models more room to improve.
  • If integrated into a full ODQA pipeline, the top-1 and top-20 accuracy gains should translate into better answer recall since the reader is more likely to see the correct passage near the top.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open whether the gains come from correct classification or from adding any type-specific text; a control that randomizes the category labels would determine whether the classifier's accuracy drives the improvement.
  • The template only injects the category name; extending the template with the minor-type description from Table 7 might yield further gains, a test the paper does not run.
  • Since the classifier is a separate trained component, one could also fine-tune it jointly with the reranking objective, which would let the categories be optimized for retrieval rather than for classification accuracy.
  • The case study shows the generated questions become more specific; if that is the mechanism, retrieval gains could be predicted by measuring generated-question overlap with the original question without executing full reranking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DynRank, a zero-shot passage reranking method that first classifies each query into one of five coarse and fifty fine-grained question types using a RoBERTa classifier fine-tuned on the UIUC question classification dataset, then constructs a type-specific prompt used by an LLM to generate a question from each retrieved passage. Passages are reranked by the log-likelihood of the original query given the passage and prompt. Experiments cover NQ, TriviaQA, and WebQuestions with BM25, Contriever, and DPR retrievers, and four BEIR datasets, reporting top-{1,20,100} retrieval accuracy and nDCG@10. The central claim is that DynRank consistently outperforms static-prompt UPR and is competitive with state-of-the-art rerankers on BEIR.

Significance. If the dynamic type-conditioned prompt is actually the cause of the observed gains, the method is attractive: it is simple, portable across retrievers, and requires no target-domain training. The case study in Appendix E shows qualitatively plausible differences between UPR-generated and DynRank-generated questions. However, the manuscript does not currently establish the required causal link: the question classifier is never evaluated on the retrieval datasets, the prompt template mapping is under-specified, and several headline differences from UPR are within 0.2–0.5 accuracy points with no statistical support. The idea is worth publishing only after the attribution question is addressed with target-domain classification results and an oracle-label ablation.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.2, Eq. (1), Table 2] The paper never reports the accuracy or label distribution of the question classifier C(q) on NQ, TriviaQA, WebQuestions, or BEIR; Table 2 only reports UIUC test accuracy. Since the only mechanism by which DynRank can differ from UPR is the type label entering Eqs. (2)–(4), the observed improvements cannot be attributed to correct dynamic classification without either (a) target-domain classification accuracy or error analysis, or (b) an ablation comparing dynamic labels with oracle labels and with random or degenerate labels. Without one of these, the central claim that dynamic prompting, rather than prompt wording or LLM behavior, drives the gains is unsupported.
  2. [4, Table 1] The claim that DynRank 'consistently outperformed' UPR is not supported by Table 1. Several cells tie or go the other way: Contriever+TriviaQA top-20 is 82.7 versus 82.8 for UPR and top-100 ties at 86.4; DPR+NQ top-1 ties at 42.5; DPR+NQ top-100 improves only from 88.5 to 89.0. No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, and many gains are 0.1–0.5 accuracy points, so the consistent-improvement claim is not established.
  3. [2.3, Table 7] The dynamic prompt function T(lmaj, lmin) is specified only through a single worked example ('human'/'individual'). The paper does not provide the template wording for the other fine-grained types or for the five major types, nor does it state which types occur in each dataset. This makes the method irreproducible and prevents a reader from verifying that the prompt actually encodes the inferred type rather than introducing accidental wording effects.
  4. [4, Results text versus Table 1] The results paragraph misstates Table 1: it claims a 4.4% top-10 and 4.8% top-20 boost on the NQ dataset for DPR, but Table 1 has no NQ top-10 column and shows DPR top-20 improving only from 83.3 to 83.9. The reported deltas do not match any cells in Table 1, so the text should be corrected to reference the appropriate cells and metrics, or the table should be expanded to include the claimed metric.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The dataset name is inconsistent: 'WebQA' appears in Figure 1, Section 3.1, and the case-study appendix, while Tables 1 and 4 use 'WebQ'; please pick one name and use it consistently.
  2. [Table 2] The model names 'RobertA-base' and 'RobertA-large' should be 'RoBERTa-base' and 'RoBERTa-large'.
  3. [3.2] The experimental setup mentions an 'MSS' retriever, but the reported experiments use only BM25, Contriever, and DPR; please clarify what MSS refers to or remove the mention.
  4. [4, Table 3, Figure 3] The BEIR average nDCG@10 is reported as 54.1 in the text but 54.39 in Table 3 and Figure 3; please make the numbers consistent.
  5. [6, Limitations] The limitations section lists computational overhead and dependence on pre-trained models but omits the two most load-bearing limitations: the question classifier is not evaluated on the target retrieval datasets, and the reported performance differences are not significance-tested; please add these.
  6. [References] Wolf et al. appears twice as 2020a and 2020b with overlapping content; consolidate the duplicate entries to avoid citation confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DynRank's dynamic prompt is a hand-written, externally trained conditioning step, and the scoring function is inherited from UPR without fitting to the retrieval benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that conditioning UPR-style question generation on an inferred question type improves reranking. The derivation chain is: (1) a RoBERTa classifier is fine-tuned on the external UIUC question-classification dataset, giving (lmaj, lmin) in Eq. (1); (2) a hand-written template maps those labels to a prompt p in Eq. (2); (3) the relevance score is the UPR log-likelihood of the original question given the passage and the prompt, Eq. (4); and (4) passages are sorted by that score, Eq. (5). None of these steps fits a parameter to Natural Questions, TriviaQA, WebQuestions, or BEIR. The classifier is trained on an independent dataset, the template is fixed and manually specified, and the scoring function is taken unchanged from UPR. The reported improvements over UPR are empirical outcomes of changing the prompt text, not quantities that are equal to the inputs by construction. The absence of classifier accuracy on the target retrieval datasets is a real evaluation gap, but it is a verification or generalization concern, not circularity: nothing in the equations forces the retrieval gains from the UIUC classifier labels. The paper contains several self-citations in the introduction and related work, but they are contextual references to the authors' prior QA work and are not used as the justification for the dynamic-prompt mechanism or for any uniqueness claim. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to the target benchmarks, and no circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two factual premises: that the externally trained UIUC classifier transfers to the retrieval datasets, and that the hand-written type-specific template steers the LLM as intended. The scoring machinery is inherited from UPR, which is a cited external baseline rather than a new postulate. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Reranked passage count K = 1000 for ODQA = 1000
    Follows the UPR protocol from Sachan et al. (2022); chosen by hand, not fit to data, and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Reranked passage count = 100 for BEIR = 100
    Standard top-100 BM25 reranking setup in BEIR; chosen by hand and not varied.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption UIUC question types learned from news-style questions transfer to NQ, TriviaQA, WebQuestions, and BEIR questions.
    The classifier is fine-tuned on Li and Roth (2002) and applied without retraining to all target datasets; if the type distribution or phrasing differs, prompts may be wrong. Invoked in Section 2.2 and Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Question-generation log-likelihood under the dynamic prompt is a valid relevance score for passage reranking.
    Equations 3 and 4 reuse the UPR scoring assumption; no justification specific to DynRank is given beyond citing UPR.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed prompt template 'Document: [passage]. The above Document is about {Lmaj} specially on {Lmin}, please write a question based on {Lmaj}' correctly guides generation for all 50 fine-grained types.
    Only one template is shown; the paper does not provide the full mapping from categories to prompt strings or evidence that the wording is optimal. This is the central novel design choice.
  • domain assumption The language model follows the category-conditioned instruction well enough to generate type-appropriate questions.
    Evaluated only indirectly through downstream retrieval accuracy; no direct measure of prompt adherence is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DynRank: Improving Passage Retrieval with Dynamic Zero-Shot Prompting Based on Question Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YPKX42Q

@misc{pith2026241200600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DynRank: Improving Passage Retrieval with Dynamic Zero-Shot Prompting Based on Question Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YPKX42Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00600}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents DynRank, a novel framework for enhancing passage retrieval in open-domain question-answering systems through dynamic zero-shot question classification. Traditional approaches rely on static prompts and pre-defined templates, which may limit model adaptability across different questions and contexts. In contrast, DynRank introduces a dynamic prompting mechanism, leveraging a pre-trained question classification model that categorizes questions into fine-grained types. Based on these classifications, contextually relevant prompts are generated, enabling more effective passage retrieval. We integrate DynRank into existing retrieval frameworks and conduct extensive experiments on multiple QA benchmark datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top-1 Accuracy after re-ranking the top 1,000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of the proposed DYNRANK framework. First, retrieve relevant documents a retriever. The retrieved documents are then re-ranked based on a dynamically generated prompt, tailored to the question’s classification into major (Lmaj ) and minor (Lmin) types. A large language model (LLM) processes this prompt to re-rank the top-k documents, improving retrieval accuracy. log P(q | zi , p) = 1 |q| X |q| t=1 l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average nDCG@10 scores for different lan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah and Adam Jatowt. 2023. Generator-retriever-generator: A novel approach to open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11278

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah, Mahmoud Kasem, Mahmoud Abdalla, Mohamed Mahmoud, Mohamed Elkasaby, Yasser Elbendary, and Adam Jatowt. 2024. Arabicaqa: A comprehensive dataset for arabic question answering. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2049--2059

    2024

  3. [3]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah, Bhawna Piryani, and Adam Jatowt. 2023. Exploring the state of the art in legal qa systems. Journal of Big Data, 10(1):127

    2023

  4. [4]

    Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. https://aclanthology.org/D13-1160 Semantic parsing on F reebase from question-answer pairs . In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    2013

  5. [5]

    Eduardo Cortes, Vinicius Woloszyn, Arne Binder, Tilo Himmelsbach, Dante Barone, and Sebastian M \"o ller. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.665 An empirical comparison of question classification methods for question answering systems . In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5408--5416, Marseille, France....

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long a...

    doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

  7. [7]

    Luyu Gao, Xueguang Ma, Jimmy Lin, and Jamie Callan. 2022. Precise zero-shot dense retrieval without relevance labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10496

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Raphael Gruber, Abdelrahman Abdallah, Michael F \"a rber, and Adam Jatowt. 2024. Complextempqa: A large-scale dataset for complex temporal question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04866

    arXiv 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P17-1147 T rivia QA : A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computat...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Bernhard Kratzwald, Anna Eigenmann, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2019. Rankqa: Neural question answering with answer re-ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03008

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1eA7AEtvS Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  5. [13]

    Dingcheng Li, Jingyuan Zhang, and Ping Li. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2018.8622331 Representation learning for question classification via topic sparse autoencoder and entity embedding . In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 126--133

    2018

  6. [14]

    Xin Li and Dan Roth. 2002. https://aclanthology.org/C02-1150 Learning question classifiers . In COLING 2002: The 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics

    2002

  7. [15]

    Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini: A python toolkit for reproducible information retrieval research with sparse and dense representations. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference ...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Yaqing Liu, Xiaokai Yi, Rong Chen, Zhengguo Zhai, and Jingxuan Gu. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen.2018.0006 Feature extraction based on information gain and sequential pattern for english question classification . IET Software, 12(6):520--526

    2018

  9. [17]

    Yinhan Liu , Myle Ott , Naman Goyal , Jingfei Du , Mandar Joshi , Danqi Chen , Omer Levy , Mike Lewis , Luke Zettlemoyer , and Veselin Stoyanov . 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.11692 RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mudasir Mohd and Rana Hashmy. 2018. Question classification using a knowledge-based semantic kernel. In Soft Computing: Theories and Applications, pages 599--606, Singapore. Springer Singapore

    2018

  11. [19]

    Jamshid Mozafari, Abdelrahman Abdallah, Bhawna Piryani, and Adam Jatowt. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.546 Exploring hint generation approaches for open-domain question answering . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Niklas Muennighoff. 2022. Sgpt: Gpt sentence embeddings for semantic search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08904

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dinesh Nagumothu, Bahadorreza Ofoghi, and Peter W Eklund. 2023. Semantic triple-assisted learning for question answering passage re-ranking. In International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pages 249--264. Springer

    2023

  14. [22]

    Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04085

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Harshith Padigela, Hamed Zamani, and W Bruce Croft. 2019. Investigating the successes and failures of bert for passage re-ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.01758

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bhawna Piryani, Abdelrahman Abdallah, Jamshid Mozafari, and Adam Jatowt. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.562 Detecting temporal ambiguity in questions . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 9620--9634, Miami, Flo...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Ronak Pradeep, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, and Jimmy Lin. 2023 a . Rankvicuna: Zero-shot listwise document reranking with open-source large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15088

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ronak Pradeep, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, and Jimmy Lin. 2023 b . Rankzephyr: Effective and robust zero-shot listwise reranking is a breeze! arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02724

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Devendra Singh Sachan, Mike Lewis, Mandar Joshi, Armen Aghajanyan, Wen-tau Yih, Joelle Pineau, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Improving passage retrieval with zero-shot question generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07496

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Victor Sanh , Lysandre Debut , Julien Chaumond , and Thomas Wolf . 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.01108 DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.01108

    2019 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Devendra Singh, Siva Reddy, Will Hamilton, Chris Dyer, and Dani Yogatama. 2021. End-to-end training of multi-document reader and retriever for open-domain question answering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:25968--25981

    2021

  22. [30]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Pengjie Ren, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is chatgpt good at search? investigating large language models as re-ranking agent. ArXiv, abs/2304.09542

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Harish Tayyar Madabushi and Mark Lee. 2016. https://aclanthology.org/C16-1116 High accuracy rule-based question classification using question syntax and semantics . In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers ...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas R \"u ckl \'e , Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=wCu6T5xFjeJ BEIR : A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models . In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Info...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R \'e mi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2020 a . Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical ...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Xuyang Wu, Zhiyuan Peng, Sravanthi Rajanala, Hsin-Tai Wu, and Yi Fang. 2024. Passage-specific prompt tuning for passage reranking in question answering with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20654

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Min Yang, Wei Zhao, Lei Chen, Qiang Qu, Zhou Zhao, and Ying Shen. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2019.06.014 Investigating the transferring capability of capsule networks for text classification . Neural Networks, 118:247--261

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Chunting Zhou , Chonglin Sun , Zhiyuan Liu , and Francis C. M. Lau . 2015. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1511.08630 A C-LSTM Neural Network for Text Classification . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1511.08630

    2015 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    Shengyao Zhuang, Honglei Zhuang, Bevan Koopman, and Guido Zuccon. 2024. A setwise approach for effective and highly efficient zero-shot ranking with large language models. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information ...

    2024

  31. [39]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  32. [40]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.