Improving JEV Entailment Reranking with Span Readouts and Selective Adaptation
Organizations: Peking University · SUIBE · University of Macau · Tsinghua University ·
Abstract
JEV decision models pair a language model backbone with a lightweight scoring head to select among natural-language options. Direct selection compares candidate answers within one request, whereas entailment reranking evaluates each candidate in a separate natural language inference (NLI) request over fixed relation options. We examine whether the readout and adaptation choices used for direct selection remain effective for cross-request reranking. We combine a mean-span readout with selective backbone adaptation. Mean-span pooling replaces the option-ending pointer with an average of the contextualized states inside each NLI option, without adding head parameters. Selective adaptation retains low-rank updates in attention and gated DeltaNet projections while removing feed-forward adapters. On MC11, which averages accuracy over eleven reranking configurations from seven sources, selective adaptation improves NeoHorse-1-4B accuracy over the all-module baseline while cutting trainable parameters by more than half, and mean-span pooling yields further consistent gains at the same parameter count.
Figures & tables
| Direct accuracy (%) | NLI accuracy (%) | Pooling minus pointer (pp) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population and training | Pointer | Pooling | Pointer | Pooling | Direct | NLI |
| PIQA, higher-rate models | 79.33 | 79.20 | 65.15 | 73.22 | ||
| SocialIQA, one epoch | 73.76 | 71.43 | 61.12 | 61.40 | ||
| SocialIQA, two epochs | 73.67 | 71.81 | 56.82 | 58.84 | ||
| Adapter scope | ||
| Readout | All modules | No-FFN |
| Pointer | ||
| Mean-span | ||
| Pool pointer (pp) | ||
| Trainable parameters (M) | 131.17 | 58.82 |
| Parameter group | All modules | No-FFN |
|---|---|---|
| Attention adapters | 12.58 | 12.58 |
| DeltaNet adapters | 44.92 | 44.92 |
| FFN adapters | 72.35 | 0 |
| Bilinear head | 1.31 | 1.31 |
| Total trainable | 131.17 | 58.82 |
| Adapter peak rate | ||
|---|---|---|
| Head peak rate | Lower | Higher |
| Lower | ||
| Higher | ||
| Training budget, both rates lower | ||
| Readout | One epoch | Two epochs |
| Pointer | ||
| Factor | Paired comparison | PIQA (pp) | CommonsenseQA (pp) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning rate | Lower-rate pointer higher-rate pointer | ||
| Readout | Pooling pointer, both lower-rate | ||
| Adapter scope | No-FFN pointer all-module pointer | ||
| Scope comparison accuracy: all-module pointer | 75.04% | 54.24% | |
| Scope comparison accuracy: no-FFN pointer | 80.25% | 63.80% | |
| Core model | JevBench (%) | Kev (%) |
|---|---|---|
| All-module pointer | ||
| All-module pooling | ||
| No-FFN pointer | ||
| No-FFN pooling |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Configuration | Questions | Split | External candidates and demonstrations |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-Easy | 2,376 | Test | Choices supplied with each source question. |
| ARC-Challenge | 1,172 | Test | Choices supplied with each source question. |
| WinoGrande | 1,267 | Validation | Supplied alternatives, inserted into the incomplete sentence. |
| GSM8K, four options | 1,319 | Test | Correct numerical answer and three generated distractors. |
| GSM8K, ten options | 1,319 | Test | Correct numerical answer and nine generated distractors. |
| GPQA | 198 | Diamond | Supplied answers, with the correct answer first in loaded order. |
| NeoHorse | Qwen3-4B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Configuration | Pool ptr. all | Pool ptr. no-FFN | No-FFN all pooling | Pool last-content all | Pool ptr. all |
| MMLU, few-shot | |||||
| MMLU | |||||
| HellaSwag | |||||
| GSM8K, ten options | |||||
| ARC-Easy | |||||
| Kev subset | Pool ptr., all | Pool ptr., no-FFN | Ptr.: no-FFN all | Pool: no-FFN all |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decision development | ||||
| Decision test | ||||
| Transfer-v4 development | ||||
| Transfer-v4 test | ||||
| Transfer-v9 development | ||||
| Transfer-v9 test |
| Pointer recipe or paired change | MC11 | JevBench | Kev |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joint training, higher rate (accuracy, %) | 45.90 | 75.62 | 81.47 |
| Lower-rate joint higher-rate joint (pp) | |||
| Head-first higher-rate joint (pp) | |||
| No-FFN higher-rate joint (pp) | |||
| Head-first + no-FFN higher-rate joint (pp) | |||
| Head-only tail higher-rate joint (pp) |
| Lower-rate training comparison | MC11 | JevBench | Kev |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repeated pointer reference | |||
| Frozen branch reference | |||
| Trained residual reference | |||
| Trained residual frozen branch | |||
| Trained residual repeated pointer |
| Contrast | MC11 | Seven sources | Config.-weighted LOSO | Source-weighted LOSO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head-rate main effect | ||||
| Adapter-rate main effect | ||||
| Pooling pointer, all | ||||
| Pooling pointer, no-FFN | ||||
| No-FFN all, pointer | ||||
| No-FFN all, pooling |
LLM Reranking
Large language model reranking uses LLMs to reorder retrieved documents or candidate outputs by relevance, usefulness, or task-specific criteria.
See all 130 papers