Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 18 references

DoTA-RAG: Dynamic of Thought Aggregation RAG

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A routing-aware RAG pipeline nearly doubles answer correctness on a 15-million-document web index.

desk verdict Assembles known RAG pieces into a fast competition pipeline and ships a new synthetic benchmark, but the evaluation leans on unvalidated judges and an unreleased test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12571 v1 pith:I7LYTB27 submitted 2025-06-14 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

Saksorn Ruangtanusak , Natthapath Rungseesiripak , Peerawat Rojratchadakorn , Monthol Charattrakool , Natapong Nitarach This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords Retrieval-AugmentedGenerationdynamicroutinghybridretrievalRAGbenchmarksynthesisLivechallengeFineWeb-10BTLLM-as-a-judgeembeddingmodelselection
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

DoTA-RAG claims that a RAG system can serve a 15-million-document web corpus both fast and accurately if it steers each query to a small sub-index before retrieving. The paper reports correctness climbing from 0.752 (baseline with E5-base-v2 embeddings) to 1.478 for the full pipeline on its 500-question benchmark, with end-to-end latency around 35 seconds per question, and 0.929 correctness on the official challenge day. The two load-bearing ideas are dynamic namespace routing, which uses self-consistency voting to pick the right topical sub-index and cuts dense-retrieval latency from about 101 to 19 seconds, and hybrid retrieval, where dense search, BM25 pruning, and a cross-encoder reranker lift faithfulness from -0.108 to 0.428. The claim matters because live web-scale RAG typically trades accuracy against latency; the paper argues the tradeoff can be resolved by metadata-guided routing plus staged filtering. All scores come from LLM judges, and the paper notes Falcon3-10B-Instruct (the answer generator itself) scores higher than Claude 3.5 Sonnet with no human agreement study.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is dynamic namespace routing combined with hybrid retrieval. Every document in the 15M-document FineWeb-10BT index is tagged by WebOrganizer's TopicClassifier and FormatClassifier into one of 24 topic namespaces; for each query, Falcon3-10B-Instruct produces four independent namespace classifications and self-consistency voting selects the top two namespaces, shrinking the search space by 92 percent. Retrieval then fans out with Arctic-embed-m-v2.0 dense search (k=100), prunes with BM25 to 20 passages, and selects the top 10 with Cohere's Rerank 3.5 cross-encoder. This staged design is what does the work: routing buys latency, and the dense-to-sparse-to-rerank cascade buys grounding.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of about 100 answers from the 500-question internal set, have human annotators score them on the same -1 to 2 correctness rubric, and compare against Falcon3-10B-Instruct's scores: if the human-model agreement is weak or Falcon3 systematically inflates, the headline improvement fails. A cheaper check is to rerun the baseline and DoTA-RAG on the official Live Challenge Day with the live judge and see whether the internal gap reproduces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that the DoTA-RAG pipeline — query rewriting for noisy input, ensemble routing into topical namespaces, dense-then-sparse-then-cross-encoder retrieval, and answer generation by Falcon3-10B-Instruct — reconciles web-scale knowledge integration with precision and low latency. The ablation path shows the contribution of each stage: swapping in Arctic-embed-m-v2.0 embeddings raises correctness from 0.752 to 1.616 and Recall@10 from 0.469 to 0.518; routing preserves that accuracy while cutting retrieval latency by 81 percent; BM25 pruning plus Cohere Rerank 3.5 raises faithfulness from -0.108 to 0.672. Query rewriting is the one stage that lowers internal scores (1.652 to 1.478), kept because the live challenge queries contained typos and specialized terms that broke retrieval without it. The paper also constructs MorganaMultiDocQA, a 500-question benchmark stratified across 24 topics times 24 document formats with eight question types, including temporal-evolution and verification questions that require synthesizing or adjudicating across documents.

Load-bearing premise

The internal results rest on an LLM judge — usually Falcon3-10B-Instruct, the same model that writes the answers — scoring correctness and faithfulness with no human-annotation check, and Falcon3 scores notably higher than Claude 3.5 Sonnet; if those automated scores do not track true answer quality, the claimed improvement from 0.752 to 1.478 is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Metadata-guided routing delivers large latency gains without sacrificing accuracy: shrinking the search space by 92 percent drops dense-retrieval latency from 100.84 to 19.01 seconds per question.
  • Hybrid retrieval materially improves factual grounding: adding BM25 pruning and cross-encoder reranking raises faithfulness from -0.108 to 0.428.
  • Embedding model choice is the single largest correctness lever in the pipeline: Arctic-embed-m-v2.0 beats E5-base-v2 by 0.86 correctness points and lifts Recall@10 from 0.469 to 0.518.
  • The 300-word output cap imposed by the live evaluation sharply depresses faithfulness scores (0.702 to 0.336 under Claude 3.5 Sonnet), so reported faithfulness depends heavily on evaluation truncation policy.
  • Query rewriting for typos and misspellings is harmful on clean benchmarks, but the paper argues it is necessary for realistic web queries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The self-consistency routing idea transfers: any corpus with a cheap metadata taxonomy could use the same vote-then-top-k namespace selection, so the latency win is not specific to WebOrganizer.
  • MorganaMultiDocQA's question taxonomy (temporal-evolution, verification, multi-aspect) tests retrieval-and-synthesis behaviors that single-document QA benchmarks miss, so it could serve as a reusable stress test for other RAG pipelines, though its 500 questions are synthetic.
  • The judge-inflation gap between Falcon3 and Claude 3.5 Sonnet suggests that pipelines tuned against one LLM judge may overfit to that judge's preferences; a human-annotated subset of LiveRAG answers would settle which configuration actually answers best.
  • Because faithfulness collapsed under the output cap while correctness stayed high, grounding metrics may need to separate 'the answer is right' from 'the answer is fully supported within a verbosity budget'.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. DoTA-RAG is a five-stage retrieval-augmented generation pipeline developed for the SIGIR 2025 LiveRAG Challenge over a 15M-document FineWeb-10BT index. The stages are query rewriting, dynamic namespace routing with self-consistency voting, hybrid retrieval (dense search with Arctic-embed-m-v2.0, BM25 pruning, Cohere Rerank 3.5), context aggregation with an 8k-token cap, and Falcon3-10B-Instruct answer generation. The authors construct a 500-question internal benchmark, Morgana-MultiDocQA, via DataMorgana and WebOrganizer taxonomies, and report an internal correctness improvement from 0.752 (baseline) to 1.478 (DoTA-RAG) with faithfulness improving from -0.496 to 0.640. On the Live Challenge Day they report correctness 0.929 and faithfulness 0.043, attributing the low faithfulness to the live 300-word output cap. The paper concludes that metadata-guided routing and hybrid retrieval deliver substantial gains in accuracy and latency.

Significance. If the reported measurements are valid, the paper provides a useful engineering demonstration that dynamic topic/format routing and multi-stage hybrid retrieval can reduce latency substantially (100.84s to 19.01s per query) while improving answer correctness on a web-scale corpus. The ablation table is transparent, the latency measurements are concrete, and the decision to re-embed FineWeb-10BT with a stronger model is clearly described. However, the significance is conditional on the evaluation being trustworthy: the central correctness gains rest entirely on unvalidated LLM judges, the final shipped configuration is internally worse than an ablated alternative, and the live faithfulness score is near zero. These issues must be resolved before the practical-deployment claim is supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4, Table 2] The paper's central correctness delta (Baseline 0.752 to DoTA-RAG 1.478 in Table 3) and the live-corroboration claim rest on LLM-as-a-judge scores, yet Table 2, titled "Judge agreement," reports only mean scores (Claude 3.5 Sonnet correctness 1.382, Falcon3-10B 1.430; faithfulness 0.520 vs 0.580). It contains no per-item correlation, Cohen's kappa, or human-agreement study, so the paper does not establish that either judge is a valid proxy for answer quality. I ask for per-item agreement statistics and a human-annotated subset (or a published judge-validation argument) before the 0.752-to-1.478 improvement can be accepted as a measurement of answer quality.
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 3] The shipped configuration, +Rewrite, is strictly worse internally than the +Rerank configuration: correctness drops from 1.652 to 1.478 and faithfulness from 0.672 to 0.640. Section 2.1 justifies this choice by anecdotal live-day failure cases involving misspellings, but no data are presented showing that rewriting improves performance on those queries or on the official live set. The paper's headline improvement is therefore achieved by a configuration that is not the best on the internal benchmark; the authors need to demonstrate that the rewriting stage helps on the target distribution, or report the +Rerank configuration as the primary system.
  3. [Section 4.2] The Live Challenge Day correctness of 0.929 is presented as corroboration, but the faithfulness collapse from 0.702 to 0.336 under the 300-word cap (re-evaluated with Claude) shows the cap can materially change judged answers. No analogous re-evaluation of correctness under the cap is reported, so the 0.929 correctness score may also be an artifact of truncation rather than a measure of the same answers that scored 1.478 internally. The authors should re-judge the capped and uncapped live answers for correctness, or otherwise show that correctness is insensitive to the cap.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Appendix C] The internal benchmark is generated with DataMorgana and auto-tagged with the same WebOrganizer topic/format taxonomy used to define the routing namespaces, and all component selections are made on this benchmark. This creates a risk of overfitting to synthetic data and to the taxonomy: routing to the top two of 24 self-invented namespaces may generalize poorly to the live corpus. The benchmark is also unpublished and unreleased. To support generalization claims, the authors should provide (i) the benchmark or a public validation set, and (ii) an evaluation on an independently labeled sample of FineWeb-10BT, not just the official leaderboard number paired with a failed faithfulness score.
  5. [Table 3] All internal results are single-run mean scores on 500 questions with no standard errors, significance tests, or multiple-seed variation. The drop caused by +Rewrite (0.174 correctness) and the gains from +Arctic-M (0.864) could in part reflect evaluation noise; the paper should report variance or at least a significance test for the key comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, Appendix A] The query-rewriting prompt says to leave intentional typos unchanged, but the motivation is to correct misspellings; please clarify how the model distinguishes intentional from unintentional typos and provide examples of rewritten queries.
  2. [References] References [5] and [6] are the same paper (Gao et al., "Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels") listed twice with different venues; deduplicate and cite the published ACL version.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The abstract omits the Live Challenge Day faithfulness score of 0.043, which is important context for the headline correctness figure of 0.929; please report both scores together.
  4. [Table 3] The baseline row has no runtime, and the footnote explains that the baseline uses a pre-built index; the caption should state explicitly that the runtime comparison is not end-to-end for the baseline.
  5. [Section 3.2] The claim that Arctic v2.0 embedding models are state-of-the-art is based on the MTEB leaderboard at time of writing; cite the leaderboard version/date and report the retrieval-task subset rather than the mean over all tasks.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The live Challenge Day score is partly circular because the query-rewriting component was added to fit the Live test set and the same score is then cited as validation; the internal benchmark comparison is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 (Query Rewriting); Section 4.1 Table 3 (+Rewrite row); Section 4.2 (Live Challenge Day Performance)]
    "On Live Challenge Day, we discovered new failure cases involving user queries with either highly specialized terms or significant misspellings. ... prompting us to re-evaluate query rewriting to tackle these issues. ... Although adding rewriting decreases performance, we believe including it as part of the DoTA-RAG would better align our model with the test set in the LiveRAG Live Challenge Day."

    The final configuration's query-rewriting stage is justified only by Live Challenge Day failure cases and by 'align[ing] our model with the test set,' while Table 3 shows it decreases internal correctness from 1.652 (+Rerank) to 1.478. The same Live Challenge Day leaderboard correctness (0.929) is then reported as 'confirming' answer quality and, in the conclusion, as 'validating the generalization of our RAG beyond in-house data.' The live result is therefore used both to select a component and to validate the configuration containing it, so the live corroboration is not out-of-sample. The internal 0.752-to-1.478 comparison is independent of this loop and remains meaningful.

full rationale

This is an engineering system paper with no mathematical derivation chain, so proof-theoretic circularity does not apply. I checked the load-bearing evaluation steps. The internal 0.752-to-1.478 improvement (Table 3) uses Claude 3.5 Sonnet as judge, not the generating model, and the component ablations are reported honestly (e.g., +Rewrite decreases internal correctness). The absence of per-item judge-agreement statistics in Table 2 and the unreleased synthetic Morgana-MultiDocQA set are validity risks, not circularity. The use of the same WebOrganizer taxonomy for benchmark stratification and for routing namespaces is a distributional overlap but does not equate the predicted metric to the input labels. One concrete circular step exists: query rewriting was added after observing Live Challenge Day failure cases, explicitly to 'align our model with the test set,' and then the Live Challenge Day score is presented as confirmation and generalization. That makes the live claim partially circular, but the central internal benchmark result retains independent content. Score 4 reflects one load-bearing evaluation loop with independent internal results, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims depend on several domain assumptions that are not independently verified: classifier accuracy, judge validity, synthetic benchmark representativeness, and embedding transfer. The manual k-values and token cap are design choices. No new theoretical entities are introduced. This ledger explains why the internal score of 1.478 should be read as a system-tuning result rather than a law-like prediction.

free parameters (7)
  • Dense retrieval candidate count (k) = 100
    Hand-chosen fan-out width in Stage 3(1); Section 2.3. The value is not fitted to data but is a manual design choice.
  • BM25 pruning keep count = 20
    Retain top 20 passages on-the-fly; Section 2.3(2). Manual threshold.
  • Reranker final count = 10
    Select 10 highest-scoring passages; Section 2.3(3). Manual threshold affecting context size.
  • Namespace routing top count = 2
    Query top two namespaces in parallel; Section 2.2. Manual trade-off between recall and latency.
  • Self-consistency vote count = 4
    Four independent classifications per query; Section 2.2. Manual choice.
  • Context token cap = 8000
    Truncate concatenated passages if over 8k tokens; Section 2.4. Manual budget.
  • Test set sample size = 500
    Stratified sample from 1,000 DataMorgana-generated pairs; Equation (1), Section 3.1. Manual benchmark size.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption WebOrganizer TopicClassifier and FormatClassifier provide accurate labels for FineWeb-10BT documents.
    Used to define 24x24 strata for the benchmark and to map topics to Pinecone namespaces (Appendix C); no accuracy audit is reported.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge scores are valid measures of correctness and faithfulness.
    Section 3.4 and Table 2 compare only two LLMs, with Falcon3 (the generator) scoring higher; no human agreement is reported.
  • domain assumption DataMorgana-generated questions, augmented with the authors' taxonomy, are representative of real user queries in the LiveRAG challenge.
    Section 3.1; the paper notes live failures with typos only after the live day, so the synthetic set did not capture that distribution.
  • domain assumption Arctic-embed-m-v2.0's MTEB leaderboard performance transfers to FineWeb-10BT retrieval.
    Section 3.2; only Recall@10 on the internal set (0.469 to 0.518) is reported, with no statistical significance tests.
  • domain assumption Falcon3-10B-Instruct can reliably perform both namespace classification and answer generation.
    Section 2.2 uses it as the router; generating and routing with the same model may produce correlated errors.
  • domain assumption Self-consistency voting improves routing accuracy over a single classification.
    Section 2.2 adopts self-consistency from Wang et al. [15] without measuring routing accuracy directly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DoTA-RAG: Dynamic of Thought Aggregation RAG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7LYTB27

@misc{pith2026250612571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DoTA-RAG: Dynamic of Thought Aggregation RAG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7LYTB27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12571}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce DoTA-RAG (Dynamic-of-Thought Aggregation RAG), a retrieval-augmented generation system optimized for high-throughput, large-scale web knowledge indexes. Traditional RAG pipelines often suffer from high latency and limited accuracy over massive, diverse datasets. DoTA-RAG addresses these challenges with a three-stage pipeline: query rewriting, dynamic routing to specialized sub-indexes, and multi-stage retrieval and ranking. We further enhance retrieval by evaluating and selecting a superior embedding model, re-embedding the large FineWeb-10BT corpus. Moreover, we create a diverse Q&A dataset of 500 questions generated via the DataMorgana setup across a broad range of WebOrganizer topics and formats. DoTA-RAG improves the answer correctness score from 0.752 (baseline, using LiveRAG pre-built vector store) to 1.478 while maintaining low latency, and it achieves a 0.929 correctness score on the Live Challenge Day. These results highlight DoTA-RAG's potential for practical deployment in domains requiring fast, reliable access to large and evolving knowledge sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RAG Correctness and Faithfulness in the inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram illustrating the components and workflow of DoTA-RAG. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Query Rewriting Routing Namespace Classify Q: {question} Available namespaces: {choices_str} Step1: Identify what the question is about. Step2: Choose only the most relevant namespaces. Step3: Return final result in //boxed{} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Routing Namespace Classify Generation prompt You are a helpful assistant. Context: <passages> Question: <query> [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Generation Prompt B Categorization and Description of Question Formulations with Examples Multi-aspect. A question about two different aspects of the same entity/concept. For example: “What are the advantages of AI-powered diagnostics, and what are the associated risks…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of topics (left) and document formats (right) in Fineweb-10BT, based on WebOrganizer classifiers. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anthropic. 2024. Claude 3.5 Sonnet Model Card Addendum. https:// paperswithcode.com/paper/claude-3-5-sonnet-model-card-addendum. Ac- cessed: 2025-05-18

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Cohere. 2024. Introducing Rerank 3.5: More Relevant Results with Less Compute. https://cohere.com/blog/rerank-3pt5. Accessed: 2025-05-18

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Kenneth Enevoldsen, Isaac Chung, Imene Kerboua, Márton Kardos, Ashwin Mathur, David Stap, Jay Gala, Wissam Siblini, Dominik Krzemiński, Genta Indra Winata, Saba Sturua, Saiteja Utpala, Mathieu Ciancone, Marion Schaeffer, Gabriel Sequeira, Diganta Misra, Shreeya Dhakal, Jonathan Rystrøm, Roman Solomatin, Ömer Çağatan, Akash Kundu, Martin Bernstorff, Shitao...

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.13595 2025

  4. [4]

    Simone Filice, Guy Horowitz, David Carmel, Zohar Karnin, Liane Lewin-Eytan, and Yoelle Maarek. 2025. Generating Diverse Q&A Benchmarks for RAG Evalu- ation with DataMorgana. arXiv:2501.12789 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2501. 12789

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Luyu Gao, Xueguang Ma, Jimmy Lin, and Jamie Callan. 2022. Precise Zero- Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels. arXiv:2212.10496 [cs.IR] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2212.10496

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Luyu Gao, Xueguang Ma, Jimmy Lin, and Jamie Callan. 2023. Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Toronto, Canada, 1762...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023 2023

  7. [7]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2024. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv:2312.10997 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. 2020. ColBERT: Efficient and Effective Passage Search via Contextualized Late Interaction over BERT. arXiv:2004.12832 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.12832

    arXiv 2020

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. arXiv:2005.1140...

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Xiaoqian Li, Ercong Nie, and Sheng Liang. 2023. From Classifica- tion to Generation: Insights into Crosslingual Retrieval Augmented ICL. arXiv:2311.06595 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06595

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Darshil Modi. 2024. AutoMeta RAG: Enhancing Data Retrieval with Dynamic Metadata-Driven RAG Framework. Accessed: 2025-05-18

    2024

  4. [12]

    Guilherme Penedo, Hynek Kydlíček, Loubna Ben allal, Anton Lozhkov, Margaret Mitchell, Colin Raffel, Leandro Von Werra, and Thomas Wolf. 2024. The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scale. InThe Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information Processi...

    2024

  5. [13]

    TII Team. 2024. The Falcon 3 family of Open Models

    2024

  6. [14]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2022. Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models. arXiv:2203.11171 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Alexander Wettig, Kyle Lo, Sewon Min, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Danqi Chen, and Luca Soldaini. 2025. Organize the Web: Constructing Domains Enhances Pre- Training Data Curation. arXiv:2502.10341 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502. 10341

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Silei Xu, Wenhao Xie, Lingxiao Zhao, and Pengcheng He. 2025. Chain of Draft: Thinking Faster by Writing Less. arXiv:2502.18600 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2502.18600

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    What are the advantages of AI-powered diagnostics, and what are the associated risks of bias in medical decision-making?

    Puxuan Yu, Luke Merrick, Gaurav Nuti, and Daniel Campos. 2024. Arctic-Embed 2.0: Multilingual Retrieval Without Compromise. arXiv:2412.04506 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2412.04506 SIGIR2025 LiveRAG Challenge, February 2025, TBD Ruangtanusak et al. A Prompt Effective prompt ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.