Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 41 references

BiRD: A Bidirectional Ranking Defense Mechanism for Retrieval Augmented Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-20 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read BiRD defends RAG by spotting poisoned documents through unusually strong alignment between their backward rankings and the query's forward ranking.

desk verdict BiRD spots a bidirectional ranking alignment pattern in poisoned RAG documents and turns it into a low-overhead dual-signal defense that reports solid gains on tested attacks. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.20123 v1 pith:OTTCEHA4 submitted 2026-05-19 cs.CR cs.IR

Chengcai Gao , Zhihong Sun , Xiaochuan Shi , Qiufeng Wang , Chao Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.IR
keywords retrievalaugmentedgenerationadversarialdefensepoisoningattacksbidirectionalrankingRAGsecuritystructuresrobustness
checked against alexander_duality_circle_linkingCost.FunctionalEquation
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 sets out to prove that poisoned documents in retrieval-augmented generation systems display a consistent ranking pattern that benign documents lack, allowing a lightweight defense to filter them without heavy semantic analysis. This matters because existing defenses either demand high computation or lose effectiveness against strong poisoning attacks, restricting reliable use of RAG. By combining forward ranking for content relevance with backward ranking for context consistency, the approach aims to cut attack success while raising overall accuracy and keeping added delay under one second. If the pattern holds, RAG deployments could become safer in practice without trading performance for security.

What carries the argument

The bidirectional ranking defense mechanism that pairs forward ranking for semantic content relevance with backward ranking for ranking context consistency.

What would settle it

A test on a fresh dataset or attack method where poisoned documents no longer display the claimed stronger backward-forward alignment would falsify the central pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that poisoned documents exhibit significantly stronger alignment between their backward rankings and the query's forward ranking than benign ones do. The authors build BiRD on a dual-signal framework that uses forward ranking to judge semantic relevance and backward ranking to measure ranking context consistency, directly addressing the prior focus on content alone. Experiments across three datasets, three retrievers, three LLMs, and two attack scenarios show this reduces PoisonedRAG attack success by up to 54 percent while lifting task accuracy by up to 56 percent with under one second of extra latency on average.

Load-bearing premise

Poisoned documents will reliably show stronger alignment between their backward rankings and the query's forward ranking across varied datasets, retrievers, models, and attacks.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to have identified a key discriminative pattern in RAG systems: poisoned documents exhibit significantly stronger alignment between their backward rankings and the query's forward ranking. Building on this observation, it proposes BiRD, a bidirectional ranking defense that uses a dual-signal framework—forward ranking to assess semantic content relevance and backward ranking to quantify ranking context consistency. The approach is evaluated across 3 datasets, 3 retrievers, and 3 LLMs under 2 attack scenarios, reporting up to 54% reduction in PoisonedRAG attack success rate, up to 56% improvement in task accuracy, and average added latency under 1 second.

Significance. If the bidirectional ranking alignment pattern is shown to be a robust, generalizable property of poisoning rather than tied to specific attack constructions or retriever choices, BiRD would represent a meaningful advance by resolving the efficiency-robustness trade-off in prior semantic or voting-based defenses. The multi-configuration evaluation across datasets/retrievers/LLMs is a strength that supports broader applicability claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central performance claims (up to 54% ASR reduction and 56% accuracy improvement) are stated as maxima without identifying the exact dataset/retriever/LLM configuration, reporting variance across runs, or including statistical significance tests; this directly affects whether the data support the claimed effectiveness of the dual-signal mechanism.
  2. [Method] Method (dual-signal framework): The defense rests on the assumption that stronger backward-forward ranking alignment is intrinsic to poisoned documents and a reliable discriminator; without an ablation that isolates or removes the backward-ranking signal, it remains unclear whether reported gains derive from the proposed mechanism or from incidental top-k filtering effects.
  3. [Experiments] Experiments: Results are shown across 3 retrievers, but the evaluation does not test adapted variants of PoisonedRAG or alternative embedding models (dense vs. sparse); this leaves open whether the alignment pattern persists when the attack or retrieval setup changes, which is load-bearing for the generalizability of the defense.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for forward and backward rankings could be introduced with a small illustrative example early in the method section to improve readability.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract mentions '2 attack scenarios' but does not name them; adding the names (e.g., PoisonedRAG and the second scenario) would aid quick assessment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where we agree and the revisions we will make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central performance claims (up to 54% ASR reduction and 56% accuracy improvement) are stated as maxima without identifying the exact dataset/retriever/LLM configuration, reporting variance across runs, or including statistical significance tests; this directly affects whether the data support the claimed effectiveness of the dual-signal mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from greater specificity. In the revised version, we will update the abstract to identify the exact dataset/retriever/LLM configuration that achieves the reported maxima. We will also ensure the experimental results section reports variance across runs and includes statistical significance tests to more rigorously support the effectiveness of the dual-signal mechanism. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method (dual-signal framework): The defense rests on the assumption that stronger backward-forward ranking alignment is intrinsic to poisoned documents and a reliable discriminator; without an ablation that isolates or removes the backward-ranking signal, it remains unclear whether reported gains derive from the proposed mechanism or from incidental top-k filtering effects.

    Authors: This is a fair and important point. To clarify that the gains stem from the bidirectional mechanism rather than incidental top-k effects, we will add an ablation study in the revised manuscript. The ablation will compare the full BiRD dual-signal framework against a forward-ranking-only variant, thereby isolating the contribution of the backward-ranking signal. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments: Results are shown across 3 retrievers, but the evaluation does not test adapted variants of PoisonedRAG or alternative embedding models (dense vs. sparse); this leaves open whether the alignment pattern persists when the attack or retrieval setup changes, which is load-bearing for the generalizability of the defense.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of broader testing for generalizability. While our evaluation already spans three retrievers under two attack scenarios, we agree that adapted PoisonedRAG variants and explicit dense-versus-sparse comparisons would provide stronger evidence. We will revise the discussion section to explicitly address this limitation and outline it as future work; however, we cannot perform these additional experiments within the current revision timeline. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; defense rests on empirical pattern discovery and direct implementation.

full rationale

The paper derives BiRD from an empirical observation of bidirectional ranking alignment in poisoned documents, discovered via investigation across datasets and setups, then applies a dual-signal framework using forward and backward rankings. No equations reduce performance claims to fitted parameters by construction, no self-citations form load-bearing premises, and no ansatzes or uniqueness theorems are imported from prior author work. The central claim remains an independent empirical finding applied to defense design, with results reported across multiple retrievers and LLMs without reducing to self-referential inputs.

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

The approach relies on an empirical discovery of ranking behavior differences and standard retrieval ranking mechanics; no free parameters, domain axioms beyond ordinary IR assumptions, or new invented entities are introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BiRD: A Bidirectional Ranking Defense Mechanism for Retrieval Augmented Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OTTCEHA4

@misc{pith2026260520123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BiRD: A Bidirectional Ranking Defense Mechanism for Retrieval Augmented Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OTTCEHA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.20123}
}
read the original abstract

The growing adoption of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has led to a rise in adversarial attacks. Existing defenses, relying on semantic analysis or voting, face a trade-off between high computational cost and limited robustness under strong poisoning attacks. Their fundamental limitation is the exclusive focus on semantic content relevance, while neglecting the retrieval context that is critically defined by ranking structures. To this end, we investigate the bidirectional ranking behavior of poisoned and benign documents, and discover a key discriminative pattern: poisoned documents exhibit significantly stronger alignment between their backward rankings and the query's forward ranking. Capitalizing on this, we propose BiRD, a bidirectional ranking defense mechanism built upon a dual-signal framework that leverages forward ranking to assess semantic content relevance and backward ranking to quantify ranking context consistency. This design directly addresses the fundamental limitation of prior approaches, enabling simultaneous efficiency and robustness. Extensive evaluation across 3 datasets with 3 retrievers and 3 LLMs under 2 attack scenarios validates BiRD's effectiveness. Notably, BiRD reduces the attack success rate of PoisonedRAG by up to 54% while simultaneously improving task accuracy by up to 56%, with average additional latency under 1 second.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20123 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bidirectional Ranking Defense (BiRD) framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rank Position Poison Frequency Statistical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Rank position poison frequency comparison: (Top) different retrievers on HotpotQA; (Middle) Contriever across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: t-SNE visualization of textual embeddings for be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of BiRD method. The process is mainly divided into three stages: forward retrieval, backward retrieval, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The variation of ASR and ACC across different datasets in relation to the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ASR and ACC versus the filtering threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comprehensive comparison of rank position poisoned frequency heatmaps across three datasets (rows) and three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Rank position poison frequency for Topic-Flip attacks: PRO strategy (top row) and CON strategy (bottom row) across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions,

    L. Huang, W. Yu, W. Ma, W. Zhong, Z. Feng, H. Wang, Q. Chen, W. Peng, X. Feng, B. Qin, and T. Liu, “A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions,” ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 42:1–42:55, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,

    Y . Yao, J. Duan, K. Xu, Y . Cai, Z. Sun, and Y . Zhang, “A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,”High- Confidence Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 100211, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey,

    Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, M. Wang, and H. Wang, “Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey,” 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    PoisonedRAG: Knowledge Corruption Attacks to Retrieval-Augmented Generation of Large Language Models,

    W. Zou, R. Geng, B. Wang, and J. Jia, “PoisonedRAG: Knowledge Corruption Attacks to Retrieval-Augmented Generation of Large Language Models,” 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Poisoning Retrieval Corpora by Injecting Adversarial Passages,

    Z. Zhong, Z. Huang, A. Wettig, and D. Chen, “Poisoning Retrieval Corpora by Injecting Adversarial Passages,” inProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023, pp. 13 764–13 775

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    GASLITEing the Retrieval: Exploring Vulnerabilities in Dense Embedding-based Search,

    M. Ben-Tov and M. Sharif, “GASLITEing the Retrieval: Exploring Vulnerabilities in Dense Embedding-based Search,” 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    The Silent Saboteur: Impercepti- ble Adversarial Attacks against Black-Box Retrieval- Augmented Generation Systems,

    H. Song, Y .-a. Liu, R. Zhang, J. Guo, J. Lv, M. de Ri- jke, and X. Cheng, “The Silent Saboteur: Impercepti- ble Adversarial Attacks against Black-Box Retrieval- Augmented Generation Systems,” 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Topic-FlipRAG: Topic-Orientated Adversarial Opinion Manipulation Attacks to Retrieval- Augmented Generation Models,

    Y . Gong, Z. Chen, M. Chen, F. Yu, W. Lu, X. Wang, X. Liu, and J. Liu, “Topic-FlipRAG: Topic-Orientated Adversarial Opinion Manipulation Attacks to Retrieval- Augmented Generation Models,” 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Your RAG is Unfair: Exposing Fairness Vulnerabilities in Retrieval-Augmented Gener- ation via Backdoor Attacks,

    G. Bagwe, S. S. Chaturvedi, X. Ma, X. Yuan, K.-C. Wang, and L. Zhang, “Your RAG is Unfair: Exposing Fairness Vulnerabilities in Retrieval-Augmented Gener- ation via Backdoor Attacks,” 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    SeCon-RAG: A Two- Stage Semantic Filtering and Conflict-Free Framework for Trustworthy RAG,

    X. Si, M. Zhu, S. Qin, L. Yu, L. Zhang, S. Liu, X. Li, R. Duan, Y . Liu, and X. Jia, “SeCon-RAG: A Two- Stage Semantic Filtering and Conflict-Free Framework for Trustworthy RAG,” 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    TrustRAG: Enhancing Ro- bustness and Trustworthiness in Retrieval-Augmented Generation,

    H. Zhou, K.-H. Lee, Z. Zhan, Y . Chen, Z. Li, Z. Wang, H. Haddadi, and E. Yilmaz, “TrustRAG: Enhancing Ro- bustness and Trustworthiness in Retrieval-Augmented Generation,” 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    ReliabilityRAG: Effective and Provably Robust Defense for RAG-based Web-Search,

    Z. Shen, B. Imana, T. Wu, C. Xiang, P. Mittal, and A. Korolova, “ReliabilityRAG: Effective and Provably Robust Defense for RAG-based Web-Search,” 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Certifiably Robust RAG against Retrieval Corruption,

    C. Xiang, T. Wu, Z. Zhong, D. Wagner, D. Chen, and P. Mittal, “Certifiably Robust RAG against Retrieval Corruption,” 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    On the Vulnerabil- ity of Applying Retrieval-Augmented Generation within Knowledge-Intensive Application Domains,

    X. Xian, G. Wang, X. Bi, J. Srinivasa, A. Kundu, C. Fleming, M. Hong, and J. Ding, “On the Vulnerabil- ity of Applying Retrieval-Augmented Generation within Knowledge-Intensive Application Domains,” 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Astute RAG: Overcoming Imperfect Retrieval Augmen- tation and Knowledge Conflicts for Large Language Models,

    F. Wang, X. Wan, R. Sun, J. Chen, and S. O. Arik, “Astute RAG: Overcoming Imperfect Retrieval Augmen- tation and Knowledge Conflicts for Large Language Models,” inProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), W...

    2025

  8. [16]

    InstructRAG: Instructing Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Self- Synthesized Rationales,

    Z. Wei, W.-L. Chen, and Y . Meng, “InstructRAG: Instructing Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Self- Synthesized Rationales,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 13

    2024

  9. [17]

    Query Rewriting in Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models,

    X. Ma, Y . Gong, P. He, H. Zhao, and N. Duan, “Query Rewriting in Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models,” inProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Computation...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks,

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rock- täschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33. Cu...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Siren’s Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Li, L. Cui, D. Cai, L. Liu, T. Fu, X. Huang, E. Zhao, Y . Zhang, C. Xu, Y . Chen, L. Wang, A. T. Luu, W. Bi, F. Shi, and S. Shi, “Siren’s Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models,” 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    SimRAG: Self- Improving Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Adapt- ing Large Language Models to Specialized Domains,

    R. Xu, H. Liu, S. Nag, Z. Dai, Y . Xie, X. Tang, C. Luo, Y . Li, J. C. Ho, C. Yang, and Q. He, “SimRAG: Self- Improving Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Adapt- ing Large Language Models to Specialized Domains,” in Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Amer...

    2025

  13. [21]

    HijackRAG: Hijacking Attacks against Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models,

    Y . Zhang, Q. Li, T. Du, X. Zhang, X. Zhao, Z. Feng, and J. Yin, “HijackRAG: Hijacking Attacks against Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models,” 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    PR-Attack: Coordi- nated Prompt-RAG Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Large Language Models via Bilevel Opti- mization,

    Y . Jiao, X. Wang, and K. Yang, “PR-Attack: Coordi- nated Prompt-RAG Attacks on Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Large Language Models via Bilevel Opti- mization,” 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Maximal independent sets in bipartite graphs,

    J. Liu, “Maximal independent sets in bipartite graphs,” Journal of Graph Theory, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 495–507,

  16. [24]

    Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley

    [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/jgt.3190170407

    doi

  17. [25]

    Bidi- rectional ranking for person re-identification,

    Q. Leng, R. Hu, C. Liang, Y . Wang, and J. Chen, “Bidi- rectional ranking for person re-identification,” in2013 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 2013, pp. 1–6

    2013

  18. [26]

    Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehen- sion,

    M. Seo, A. Kembhavi, A. Farhadi, and H. Hajishirzi, “Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehen- sion,” 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Query2doc: Query Expansion with Large Language Models,

    L. Wang, N. Yang, and F. Wei, “Query2doc: Query Expansion with Large Language Models,” 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Hello neighbor: Accurate object retrieval with k-reciprocal nearest neighbors,

    D. Qin, S. Gammeter, L. Bossard, T. Quack, and L. van Gool, “Hello neighbor: Accurate object retrieval with k-reciprocal nearest neighbors,” inCVPR 2011, 2011, pp. 777–784

    2011

  21. [29]

    A contextual dissimilarity measure for accurate and efficient image search,

    H. Jegou, H. Harzallah, and C. Schmid, “A contextual dissimilarity measure for accurate and efficient image search,” in2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2007, pp. 1–8

    2007

  22. [30]

    Re-ranking Person Re-identification with k-reciprocal Encoding,

    Z. Zhong, L. Zheng, D. Cao, and S. Li, “Re-ranking Person Re-identification with k-reciprocal Encoding,” 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Natural Questions: A Benchmark for Question Answer- ing Research,

    T. Kwiatkowski, J. Palomaki, O. Redfield, M. Collins, A. Parikh, C. Alberti, D. Epstein, I. Polosukhin, J. De- vlin, K. Lee, K. Toutanova, L. Jones, M. Kelcey, M.-W. Chang, A. M. Dai, J. Uszkoreit, Q. Le, and S. Petrov, “Natural Questions: A Benchmark for Question Answer- ing ...

    2019

  24. [32]

    MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset,

    P. Bajaj, D. Campos, N. Craswell, L. Deng, J. Gao, X. Liu, R. Majumder, A. McNamara, B. Mitra, T. Nguyen, M. Rosenberg, X. Song, A. Stoica, S. Ti- wary, and T. Wang, “MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset,” 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering,

    Z. Yang, P. Qi, S. Zhang, Y . Bengio, W. Cohen, R. Salakhutdinov, and C. D. Manning, “HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering,” inProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, E. Riloff, D. Chiang, J. ...

    2018

  26. [34]

    Unsupervised Dense Information Retrieval with Contrastive Learning,

    G. Izacard, M. Caron, L. Hosseini, S. Riedel, P. Bo- janowski, A. Joulin, and E. Grave, “Unsupervised Dense Information Retrieval with Contrastive Learning,” 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Approximate Nearest Neighbor Negative Contrastive Learning for Dense Text Retrieval,

    L. Xiong, C. Xiong, Y . Li, K.-F. Tang, J. Liu, P. N. Bennett, J. Ahmed, and A. Overwijk, “Approximate Nearest Neighbor Negative Contrastive Learning for Dense Text Retrieval,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Dense Passage Re- trieval for Open-Domain Question Answering,

    V . Karpukhin, B. Oguz, S. Min, P. Lewis, L. Wu, S. Edunov, D. Chen, and W.-t. Yih, “Dense Passage Re- trieval for Open-Domain Question Answering,” inPro- ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y . He, a...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Qwen2.5 Technical Re- port,

    Qwen, A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Wei, H. Lin, J. Yang, 14 J. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Yang, J. Zhou, J. Lin, K. Dang, K. Lu, K. Bao, K. Yang, L. Yu, M. Li, M. Xue, P. Zhang, Q. Zhu, R. Men, R. Lin, T. Li, T. Tang, T. Xia, ...

    2025

  30. [38]

    Mistral 7B,

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. de las Casas, F. Bressand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier, L. R. Lavaud, M.-A. Lachaux, P. Stock, T. L. Scao, T. Lavril, T. Wang, T. Lacroix, and W. E. Sayed, “Mistral 7B,” 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone

    P. Jaccard, “The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone.”New Phytologist, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 37–50, 1912. [Online]. Available: https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x

    1912 doi

  32. [40]

    TESTS FOR RANK CORRELATION COEFFI- CIENTS. I,

    E. C. FIELLER, H. O. HARTLEY , and E. S. PEAR- SON, “TESTS FOR RANK CORRELATION COEFFI- CIENTS. I,”Biometrika, vol. 44, no. 3-4, pp. 470–481, 1957

    1957

  33. [41]

    A similarity mea- sure for indefinite rankings,

    W. Webber, A. Moffat, and J. Zobel, “A similarity mea- sure for indefinite rankings,”ACM Transactions on In- formation Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1–38, 2010. A Appendix A.1 Formulation of Bidirectional Ranking De- fense To facilitate a clear understanding of the proposed fra...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed May 20, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.