Removing either lexical BM25 or dense embedding retrieval lowers every reported benchmark score relative to full JAM, supporting complementary contributions from the two retrieval channels.

Removing either lexical BM25 or dense embedding retrieval lowers every reported benchmark score relative to full JAM, supporting complementary contributions from the two retrieval channels. · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/8 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 8

保留同一结论下的完整结果组。已有评估排在前面；单项判断不替代整组结论。展开行查看条件、来源与历次证据。

每行是一项测量，分别显示论文报告、最近可用实测和累计证据状态。
指标与条件	论文报告	最近可用实测	证据判断
variant: w/o BM25 · category: overall · benchmark: locomo	45.9 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o BM25 · category: overall · benchmark: longmemeval	62.4%	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o BM25 · category: overall · benchmark: narrativeqa	38.88 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o BM25 · category: overall · benchmark: hotpotqa	52.14 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o Embedding · category: overall · benchmark: locomo	50.86 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o Embedding · category: overall · benchmark: longmemeval	61.8%	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o Embedding · category: overall · benchmark: narrativeqa	39.45 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o Embedding · category: overall · benchmark: hotpotqa	58.13 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估

Removing either lexical BM25 or dense embedding retrieval lowers every reported benchmark score relative to full JAM, supporting complementary contributions from the two retrieval channels.

报告指标与观测值

Assessment（0）

关联运行（0）

测量结果