Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Benchmark Hub

Retrieval Benchmark Papers With Recall

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. Common metric signal: recall. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 25, 2026.

Papers: 10 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 10 papers for Retrieval Benchmark Papers With Recall. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, Financebench and metric focus on recall, coherence. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Retrieval appears in 100% of hub papers (10/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Financebench appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • recall is reported in 100% of hub papers (10/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • coherence is reported in 20% of hub papers (2/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Personalized Graph-Empowered Large Language Model for Proactive Information Access

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  2. 2. E-MMKGR: A Unified Multimodal Knowledge Graph Framework for E-commerce Applications

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  3. 3. RVR: Retrieve-Verify-Retrieve for Comprehensive Question Answering

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  4. 4. Decomposing Retrieval Failures in RAG for Long-Document Financial Question Answering

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. CUICurate: A GraphRAG-based Framework for Automated Clinical Concept Curation for NLP applications

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. QueryPlot: Generating Geological Evidence Layers using Natural Language Queries for Mineral Exploration

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. RPDR: A Round-trip Prediction-Based Data Augmentation Framework for Long-Tail Question Answering

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Symphonym: Universal Phonetic Embeddings for Cross-Script Name Matching

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (10% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

Benchmark Brief

Financebench

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention Financebench.

Examples: Decomposing Retrieval Failures in RAG for Long-Document Financial Question Answering

Benchmark Brief

Medieval

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention Medieval.

Examples: Symphonym: Universal Phonetic Embeddings for Cross-Script Name Matching

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Other Benchmark Hubs