Coverage Under Contradiction: A Benchmark for Negation-Aware Retrieval

We wish to measure the information coverage of an ad hoc retrieval algorithm, that is, how much of the range of available relevant information is covered by the search results. Information coverage is a central aspect for retrieval, especially when the retrieval system is integrated with generative models in a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system. The classic metrics for ad hoc retrieval, precision and recall, reward a system as more and more relevant documents are retrieved. However, since relevance in ad hoc test collections is defined for a document without any relation to other documents that might contain the same information, high recall is sufficient but not necessary to ensure coverage. The same is true for other metrics such as rank-biased precision (RBP), normalized discounted cumulative gain (nDCG), and mean average precision (MAP). Test collections developed around the notion of diversity ranking in web search incorporate multiple aspects that support a concept of coverage in the web domain. In this work, we construct a suite of collections for evaluating information coverage from existing collections. This suite offers researchers a unified testbed spanning multiple genres and tasks. All topics, nuggets, relevance labels, and baseline rankings are released on Hugging Face Datasets, along with instructions for accessing the publicly available document collections.

Finding a long document relevant to a multi-part request is not the same as establishing that it contains every requested piece of evidence. We study this gap for conjunctive document retrieval, where two or three explicit conditions must be supported on different pages of one document. We use n-Clue as a controlled measurement instrument: 1{,}000 queries over 2{,}021 documents pair all-condition golds with naturally occurring documents that satisfy only a subset, and a complete-first success requires a top-10 gold to precede every released subset qrel. Across 70 configurations, condition-wise decomposition improves two dense backbones by 6.8--7.3 points and lexical--visual fusion adds 8.7, while four generic rerankers all reduce Gold-NDCG; these directions replicate on a four-source stress set. Scaling one dense family from 0.6B to 8B changes complete-first success by 0.0 points. The strongest displayed hybrid illustrates the resulting gap: it finds a gold for 81.1% of queries but succeeds complete-first on only 35.8%, and the gap persists across condition count, target length, candidate density, query rendering, and the four-source stress set. Finally, page-aware visual systems surface stored support for every condition on only 5.1--5.3% of queries. These results identify condition coverage, rather than gold discovery alone, as the central bottleneck.

Retrieval quality is the primary bottleneck for accuracy and robustness in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Current evaluation relies on heuristically constructed query sets, which introduce a hidden intrinsic bias. We formalize retrieval evaluation as a statistical estimation problem, showing that metric reliability is fundamentally limited by the evaluation-set construction. We further introduce semantic stratification, which grounds evaluation in corpus structure by organizing documents into an interpretable global space of entity-based clusters and systematically generating queries for missing strata. This yields (1) formal semantic coverage guarantees across retrieval regimes and (2) interpretable visibility into retrieval failure modes. Experiments across multiple benchmarks and retrieval methods validate our framework. The results expose systematic coverage gaps, identify structural signals that explain variance in retrieval performance, and show that stratified evaluation yields more stable and transparent assessments while supporting more trustworthy decision-making than aggregate metrics.