Evidence Retrieval

Systematic reviews -- which requires comprehensive evidence collection and synthesis from large document corpora in response to targeted research questions -- are foundational in finance, social sciences, and other technical fields. Manual construction of evidence tables is labor-intensive, and recent LLM-based assistants relying on embedding or keyword based search often fail to meet the coverage standards of systematic reviews. We introduce SLIDERS, a novel LLM-based methodology for systematic reviews, by automatically assembling evidence tables tailored to research questions. In addition to extracting structured data from documents, SLIDERS can extract full-text excerpts that serve as direct evidence or as provenance for structured data. Core to SLIDERS is an automated evidence reconciliation agent that writes code to analyze and reconcile extracted evidence, bringing together information fragmented across documents, resolving inconsistencies across excerpts, and synthesizing overlapping findings into a coherent evidence table. In addition, SLIDERS allows users to ask follow-up questions in natural language to further explore the assembled evidence. We evaluate SLIDERS on three systematic-review-style tasks over large document collections. SLIDERS outperforms the best-performing baseline across benchmarks, remains near 90% accuracy across 6M-11M-token corpora. On two new follow-up analysis benchmarks SLIDERS can answer 77.9% and 58.3% followup questions accurately

The retrieval stage of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for scientific question answering depends on how documents are segmented and how chunks are represented in embedding space. This dependence is especially relevant to chemistry texts, which contain dense terminology, symbolic notation, quantitative evidence, and context associated with document structure. However, benchmark-based evidence on the interaction between chunking strategy and embedding model remains limited for chemistry-specific retrieval. Using ChemQuests, a corpus of 952 question-answer pairs from 151 ChemRxiv papers across 17 chemistry subfields, we construct chunk-level, Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB)-compatible retrieval benchmarks for controlled evaluation. We first screen 41 embedding models on the external chemistry retrieval benchmarks ChemNQRetrieval and ChemHotpotQARetrieval using a geometric-mean metric at rank 10 (Geom@10), which we validate against the full retrieval-metric profile. We then evaluate shortlisted models on ChemQuests-derived tasks across five chunking strategies, seven chunk sizes, and multiple overlap settings. Embedding choice is associated with the largest observed differences in evidence retrieval, with retrieval-tuned E5, Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence General Embedding (BGE), and Nomic models among the strongest overall. Within the evaluated grid, medium-to-large chunks combined with fixed-token, recursive-token, or hierarchical-section chunking provide a practical starting point for the retrieval stage of chemistry-aware RAG. Low overlap was generally favored where overlap variation was evaluated.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has raised important concerns about the factual reliability of their outputs, particularly in low-resource languages such as Urdu. Existing automated fact-checking systems are predominantly developed for English, leaving a significant gap for the more than 200 million Urdu speakers worldwide. In this work, we present UrduFactBench and UrduFactQA, two novel hand-annotated benchmarks designed to enable fact-checking and factual consistency evaluation in Urdu. While UrduFactBench focuses on claim verification, UrduFactQA targets the factuality of LLMs in question answering. These resources, the first of their kind for Urdu, were developed through a multi-stage annotation process involving native Urdu speakers. To complement these benchmarks, we introduce UrduFactCheck, a modular fact-checking framework that incorporates both monolingual and translation-based evidence retrieval strategies to mitigate the scarcity of high-quality Urdu evidence. Leveraging these resources, we conduct an extensive evaluation of twelve LLMs and demonstrate that translation-augmented pipelines consistently enhance performance compared to monolingual ones. Our findings reveal persistent challenges for open-source LLMs in Urdu and underscore the importance of developing targeted resources. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/UrduFactCheck.

Retrieval over financial filings is difficult because queries are short and acronym-heavy while the answer-bearing evidence sits inside long, table-dense documents. We study sparse-dense hybrid retrieval on FinDER, a benchmark of expert-annotated questions over corporate 10-K filings. Our first finding is methodological: if the retrieval unit is larger than the dense encoder's input window, the dense model never sees a large share of the labeled evidence, confounding comparison against a full-text sparse baseline. We measure this directly and reduce the imbalance with windows chosen for the encoder budget. On this corpus, fusing BM25 and a compact dense encoder improves reference-level Hit@10 by roughly 28 percent over either component, and training-free, untuned reciprocal rank fusion exceeds the equal-weight blend in an exploratory comparison. We then ask whether choosing the fusion weight per query helps: an oracle over the interpolation-weight grid shows headroom of 21.8 percent, yet none of the three lightweight adaptive routers (a score-confidence heuristic, a random forest over query features, and a ridge regressor over query embeddings) establishes a statistically reliable improvement over the fixed blend under company-grouped cross-validation with cluster-robust inference. Simple fusion is a strong baseline here, and we discuss why per-query weighting does not capture the available headroom.