Papers
arxiv:2607.19747

Beyond Relevance-Centric Retrieval: Rubric-Oriented Document Set Selection and Ranking

Published on Jul 22
· Submitted by
Kailin Jiang
on Jul 23
#2 Paper of the day
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

As large language models and AI agents become the primary consumers of search results, document set quality determines the upper bound of downstream generation. Yet existing evaluation systems remain confined to scoring documents independently and aggregating via nDCG, ignoring inter-document interactions (redundancy, conflict, complementarity) and unable to answer what makes one document set better than another. To address these issues, we propose a complete evaluate-diagnose-optimize framework. We design SetwiseEvalKit, a three-level, nine-dimension document set evaluation benchmark covering both short-form and long-form scenarios, comprising approximately 28K high-quality evaluation rubrics. We systematically evaluate 12 rerankers: even the best method achieves no more than 45% coverage, cross-document coordination dimensions are universally weak, and no single method maintains top performance across both settings. Building on this, we propose Rubric4Setwise, a training-free method that converts rubric-based evaluation criteria into document set selection signals, achieving the best downstream generation performance with fewer documents and search rounds. It is the only method that maintains state-of-the-art results across both scenarios, validating the effectiveness of closing the loop from evaluation to optimization.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

As large language models and AI agents become the primary consumers of search results, document set quality determines the upper bound of downstream generation. Yet existing evaluation systems remain confined to scoring documents independently and aggregating via nDCG, ignoring inter-document interactions (redundancy, conflict, complementarity) and unable to answer what makes one document set better than another. To address these issues, we propose a complete evaluate-diagnose-optimize framework. We design SetwiseEvalKit, a three-level, nine-dimension document set evaluation benchmark covering both short-form and long-form scenarios, comprising approximately 28K high-quality evaluation rubrics. We systematically evaluate 12 rerankers: even the best method achieves no more than 45% coverage, cross-document coordination dimensions are universally weak, and no single method maintains top performance across both settings. Building on this, we propose Rubric4Setwise, a training-free method that converts rubric-based evaluation criteria into document set selection signals, achieving the best downstream generation performance with fewer documents and search rounds. It is the only method that maintains state-of-the-art results across both scenarios, validating the effectiveness of closing the loop from evaluation to optimization.

Why aren't pointwise rerankers evaluated?

·

Thank you for your attention! We classified it under Adhoc Reranking.

Every RAG pipeline I've shipped eventually hits the same wall: individual retrieval scores look fine, but the document set is full of redundancy and contradiction. This paper builds a rubric-based evaluation that actually scores the set as a set — coverage, conflict, complementarity — instead of pretending documents are independent. That's the right framing. The hard part is whether these rubric dimensions stay stable across domains or need re-calibration per use case, because "what makes a good document set" changes a lot between legal discovery and code search.

·

Thank you for your attention! Our rubrics are all in query specific form, generated using query and answer page. So each query's rubric is tailor-made for it.

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2607.19747
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.19747 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.19747 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.19747 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 2