Retrieved but not ranked: surface-form bias in structural retrieval, from mathematics to agent trajectories

Practical Tips

Practical tips and how-to guidance will be added by our editorial team.

中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站将优先为睡眠改善、失眠治疗、助眠方法等高价值文章补充中文说明。

Article Summary

We evaluate embedding retrieval where surface form and meaning are pulled apart on purpose: retrieving items that share underlying structure but not wording, in two unrelated domains under one protocol, competition mathematics (MathNet-Retrieve; 500 queries, 117,088-item corpus) and embodied-agent trajectories (ALFWorld-derived; 118 queries, 336 trajectories). In mathematics the failure is complete: strict Hit@1 at the heaviest disguise tier is 0.0% for both production embedders (bootstrap 95% CI [0.0, 0.0]) while the correct item sits in the top 10 nearly always, and in 95.2 to 99.8% of misses the winner is more lexically similar to the query than the correct answer. In trajectories, where surface variation is incidental, the same models land at or near hypergeometric chance when gold must involve a different object, and below chance for all three embedders once gold must differ in object and receptacle: retrieval anchors on literal tokens, not task structure. A lexical reranker control hurts in mathematics and helps in trajectories (closing 26 to 36% of the gap, CIs excluding zero); its sign reveals whether a benchmark's surface variation is adversarial or incidental. An LLM reranker recovers 5 to 63% of the gap in mathematics and 43 to 76% in trajectories; direction replicates across three judges (all 21 cells positive), but effect sizes, tier profiles, and the outlier judge change with domain (paired differences excluding zero everywhere). Mathematics gains concentrate on well-known competitions (+19.8 points, CI [+6.7, +33.2], one of six cells), so part of the recovery is memorization. In a paired downstream experiment (210 queries, graders at 96 to 99% agreement), oracle retrieval was indistinguishable from adversarially bad retrieval (McNemar p = 0.678); the solver's 69.5% zero-shot accuracy is largely a truncation proxy (97 to 100% on finished answers), leaving no headroom.

Sources & References

• Original source
• Full article (PDF)

Comments