Rongjin Li
Publications
NeocorRAG: Less Irrelevant Information, More Explicit Evidence, and More Effective Recall via Evidence Chains
Although precise recall is a core objective in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), a critical oversight persists in the field: improvements in retrieval performance do not consistently translate to commensurate gains in downstream reasoning. To diagnose this gap, we propose the Recall Conversion Rate (RCR), a novel evaluation metric to quantify the contribution of retrieval to reasoning accuracy. Our quantitative analysis of mainstream RAG methods reveals that as Recall@5 improves, the RCR exhibits a near-linear decay. We identify the neglect of retrieval quality in these methods as the underlying cause. In contrast, approaches that focus solely on quality optimization often suffer from inferior recall performance. Both categories lack a comprehensive understanding of retrieval quality optimization, resulting in a trade-off dilemma. To address these challenges, we propose comprehensive retrieval quality optimization criteria and introduce the NeocorRAG framework. This framework achieves holistic retrieval quality optimization by systematically mining and utilizing Evidence Chains. Specifically, NeocorRAG first employs an innovative activated search algorithm to obtain a refined candidate space. Then it ensures precise evidence chain generation through constrained decoding. Finally, the retrieved set of evidence chains guides the retrieval optimization process. Evaluated on benchmarks including HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, MuSiQue, and NQ, NeocorRAG achieves SOTA performance on both 3B and 70B parameter models, while consuming less than 20% of tokens used by comparable methods. This study presents an efficient, training-free paradigm for RAG enhancement that effectively optimizes retrieval quality while maintaining high recall. Our code is released at https://github.com/BUPT-Reasoning-Lab/NeocorRAG.
Not Search, But Scan: Benchmarking MLLMs on Scan-Oriented Academic Paper Reasoning
With the rapid progress of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), AI already performs well at literature retrieval and certain reasoning tasks, serving as a capable assistant to human researchers, yet it remains far from autonomous research. The fundamental reason is that current work on academic paper reasoning is largely confined to a search-oriented paradigm centered on pre-specified targets, with reasoning grounded in relevance retrieval, which struggles to support researcher-style full-document understanding, reasoning, and verification. To bridge this gap, we propose \textbf{ScholScan}, a new benchmark for academic paper reasoning. ScholScan introduces a scan-oriented task setting that asks models to read and cross-check entire papers like human researchers, scanning the document to identify consistency issues. The benchmark comprises 1,800 carefully annotated questions drawn from nine error categories across 13 natural-science domains and 715 papers, and provides detailed annotations for evidence localization and reasoning traces, together with a unified evaluation protocol. We assessed 15 models across 24 input configurations and conducted a fine-grained analysis of MLLM capabilities for all error categories. Across the board, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods yield no significant improvements, revealing systematic deficiencies of current MLLMs on scan-oriented tasks and underscoring the challenge posed by ScholScan. We expect ScholScan to be the leading and representative work of the scan-oriented task paradigm.