这篇论文揭示了嵌入检索在表面形式与意义分离时的严重偏差,数学领域完全失败,轨迹领域表现不一。
该研究评估了在数学(MathNet-Retrieve; 500查询,117,088项目)和智能体轨迹(ALFWorld-derived; 118查询,336轨迹)两个领域的嵌入检索。数学领域完全失败:生产嵌入模型在最重伪装层的严格Hit@1为0.0%,而正确答案几乎总在前10名。轨迹领域当必须涉及不同物体时,模型达到或接近超几何概率;当必须涉及不同物体和容器时,所有三个嵌入模型表现低于概率。词汇重排序器在数学中表现更差,在轨迹中表现更好,可缩小26-36%的差距。
Retrieved but not ranked: surface-form bias in structural retrieval, from mathematics to agent trajectories
We evaluate embedding retrieval where surface form and meaning are pulled apart on purpose: retrieving items that share underlying structure but not wording, in two unrelated domains under one protocol, competition mathematics (MathNet-Retrieve; 500 queries, 117,088-item corpus) and embodied-agent trajectories (ALFWorld-derived; 118 queries, 336 trajectories). In mathematics the failure is complete: strict Hit@1 at the heaviest disguise tier is 0.0% for both production embedders (bootstrap 95% CI [0.0, 0.0]) while the correct item sits in the top 10 nearly always, and in 95.2 to 99.8% of misses the winner is more lexically similar to the query than the correct answer. In trajectories, where surface variation is incidental, the same models land at or near hypergeometric chance when gold must involve a different object, and below chance for all three embedders once gold must differ in object and receptacle: retrieval anchors on literal tokens, not task structure. A lexical reranker control hurts in mathematics and helps in trajectories (closing 26 to 36% of the gap, CIs excluding zero); its sign reveals whether a benchmark's surface variation is adversarial or incidental. An LLM reranker recovers 5 to 63% of the gap in mathematics and 43 to 76% in trajectories; direction replicates across three judges (all 21 cells positive), but effect sizes, tier profiles, and the outlier judge change with domain (paired differences excluding zero everywhere). Mathematics gains concentrate on well-known competitions (+19.8 points, CI [+6.7, +33.2], one of six cells), so part of the recovery is memorization. In a paired downstream experiment (210 queries, graders at 96 to 99% agreement), oracle retrieval was indistinguishable from adversarially bad retrieval (McNemar p = 0.678); the solver's 69.5% zero-shot accuracy is largely a truncation proxy (97 to 100% on finished answers), leaving no headroom.