arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.18154

PageRecall: Measuring Page Selection in Literature-Grounded Question Answering

Aaditya Chauhan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper $F_1$, 0.441 evidence $F_1$ and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

Explore related subjects

cs.IRcs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aaditya Chauhan. 2026-09-16. PageRecall: Measuring Page Selection in Literature-Grounded Question Answering. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18154

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↗