Benchmarking Literature Retrieval for a Model Organism: A Dictyostelium Case Study

Deep Research Agents increasingly automate survey writing, yet existing benchmarks do not jointly test whether they retrieve the papers experts consider essential and organize those papers into paper-grounded taxonomies. We introduce TaxoBench, a benchmark built from 72 highly cited LLM surveys, 3,815 cited papers, and their expert-authored taxonomies. TaxoBench evaluates systems in two settings: Deep Research mode measures end-to-end retrieval and organization from a topic, while Bottom-Up mode provides the expert paper set and isolates organization. We evaluate leaf-level assignments with ARI and V-Measure and hierarchy-level structure with US-TED, US-NTED, and Sem-Path. Across 7 Deep Research Agents and 16 LLM configurations, the best agent retrieves only 20.92% of expert-cited papers, and none of 70 standard Bottom-Up runs reaches the experts' average depth of 4.86. A controlled probe shows that models which match this depth do so by fragmenting the taxonomy, reducing alignment with the expert reference. We further find that raw Sem-Path remains near a no-organization floor even when a newer model generation gains 3.68 pp ARI; after depth matching, humans lead on all 10 matched surveys by 13.27 pp. These results identify retrieval and hierarchical organization as separate bottlenecks and show why hierarchy metrics must be calibrated before they are used to compare models.

We introduce OntologyBench, a tiered biomedical retrieval benchmark comprising 471,854 training and 125,744 evaluation query-document relevance pairs across concept grounding, relational retrieval, and compositional phenotype-based retrieval. Although these tasks can be tractable using ontology-aware reference methods, across task tiers, embedding performance is generally lower on relational and compositional tasks than on concept-grounding tasks. Fine-tuning on ontology-derived supervision improves performance on several relational and compositional tasks, whereas the evaluated reranking and LLM-based candidate-scoring methods provide little or no end-to-end improvement. Errors frequently reflect diseases matching only subsets of the phenotype evidence. These findings indicate that the evaluated embedding and reranking configurations do not reliably recover the compatibility encoded by the selected ontology relations and phenotype combinations and motivate retrieval systems that better integrate learned representations with structured biomedical knowledge.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offers a well-established path to grounding large language model (LLM) outputs in external knowledge, yet the question of which retrieval strategy works best in a high-stakes domain such as biomedicine has not received the controlled, multi-metric treatment it deserves. This paper presents a systematic empirical comparison of five retrieval strategies -- Dense Vector Search, Hybrid BM25 + Dense retrieval, Cross-Encoder Reranking, Multi-Query Expansion, and Maximal Marginal Relevance (MMR) -- within a biomedical question-answering RAG pipeline. All strategies share a fixed generation model (GPT-4o-mini), a common vector store (ChromaDB), and OpenAI's text-embedding-3-small embeddings, ensuring that observed differences are attributable to retrieval alone. Evaluation is conducted on 250 question-answer pairs drawn from a preprocessed subset of the BioASQ benchmark (rag-mini-bioasq) using four DeepEval metrics: contextual precision, contextual recall, faithfulness, and answer relevancy, each reported with 95% confidence intervals. A no-context ablation is included as a lower bound. Cross-Encoder Reranking achieves the best composite score (0.827) and highest contextual precision (0.852), confirming that query-document interaction yields measurable retrieval gains. Multi-Query Expansion, despite its recall-oriented design, produces the weakest contextual precision (0.671), suggesting naive query diversification introduces retrieval noise. MMR sacrifices answer relevancy for diversity, while the Dense baseline (composite 0.822) falls within 0.005 points of the top strategy. All RAG conditions dramatically outperform the no-context ablation on answer relevancy (0.658-0.701 vs. 0.287), confirming the practical value of retrieval. The full pipeline, hyperparameters, and evaluation code are publicly available.