Meftun Akarsu, Recep Kaan Karaman, Christopher Mierbach
No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems critically depend on retrieval quality, yet no systematic comparison of modern retrieval methods exists for heterogeneous documents containing both text and tabular data. We benchmark ten retrieval strategies spanning sparse, dense, hybrid fusion, cross-encoder reranking, query expansion, index augmentation, and adaptive retrieval on a challenging financial QA benchmark of ...
23,088 queries over 7,318 documents with mixed text-and-table content. We evaluate retrieval quality via Recall@k, MRR, and nDCG, and end-to-end generation quality via Number Match, with paired bootstrap significance testing. Our results show that (1) a two-stage pipeline combining hybrid retrieval with neural reranking achieves Recall@5 of 0.816 and MRR@3 of 0.605, outperforming all single-stage methods by a large margin; (2) BM25 outperforms state-of-the-art dense retrieval on financial documents, challenging the common assumption that semantic search universally dominates; and (3) query expansion methods (HyDE, multi-query) and adaptive retrieval provide limited benefit for precise numerical queries, while contextual retrieval yields consistent gains. We provide ablation studies on fusion methods and reranker depth, actionable cost-accuracy recommendations, and release our full benchmark code.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrieval / indexing | HyDE | Recall@5 | 0.544 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Retrieval / indexing | Dense | Recall@5 | 0.587 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems critically depend on retrieval quality, yet no systematic comparison of modern retrieval methods exists for heterogeneous documents containing both text and tabular data.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing, Scientific computing
Methods
Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Information Retrieval
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.