analiza aiqbench
This research proposes Semantic Compression Trees (SCT) as a hierarchical alternative to flat indexes for retrieval-augmented generation, aiming to reduce per-query computational costs by leveraging tree depth rather than collection size. While the method successfully reduces context token usage and avoids LLM calls during index construction, evaluation results are mixed, showing that top-down routing via residuals often underperforms compared to flat retrieval when the system must select documents without prior knowledge. The study concludes that while the residual representation itself is valuable, the specific progressive descent mechanism does not currently offer a robust advantage for document selection tasks.
Semantic Compression Trees: Multi-Resolution Knowledge Retrieval via Hierarchical Semantic Residuals
arXiv:2608.21610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation relies mostly on flat, fixed-granularity indexes: documents are cut into uniform chunks and retrieved by similarity, discarding the hierarchical structure of the source. We introduce Semantic Compression Trees (SCT), a hierarchical index in which each node stores only its semantic residual -- the information it adds beyond its parent -- and retrieval proceeds by progressive descent from the root, so that per-query cost is governed by tree depth rather than collection size. We evaluate on QASPER (50 papers, 173 questions) under two protocols differing only in whether the benchmark supplies the relevant document, with bootstrap confidence intervals and paired significance tests throughout. The results are mixed and we report them as such. When the document is given, SCT with a zero-LLM extractive compressor matches dense retrieval on answer quality (0.274 vs. 0.277 F1, $p = 0.37$) using 30% fewer context tokens and no LLM calls to build the index, and residual storage beats storing full summaries at each node (0.274 vs. 0.205, $p < 0.001$). Increasing the collection fifty-fold multiplies flat retrieval's per-query scoring work by 48.9x and SCT's by 6.4x. Progressive descent itself is not supported. Retrieving the same residuals without the tree performs identically when the document is given ($p = 0.27$), and descent is substantially worse when the system must select the document (0.122 vs. 0.165, $p < 0.001$). Routing accuracy localises the cause: descent selects the correct paper 20.2% of the time against 39.3% for flat retrieval, because that choice is made from the root residual, the most compressed node in the tree. We conclude that the residual representation is worth keeping and top-down routing is not.
Abstract:Retrieval-augmented generation relies mostly on flat, fixed-granularity indexes: documents are cut into uniform chunks and retrieved by similarity, discarding the hierarchical structure of the source. We introduce Semantic Compression Trees (SCT), a hierarchical index in which each node stores only its semantic residual -- the information it adds beyond its parent -- and retrieval proceeds by progressive descent from the root, so that per-query cost is governed by tree depth rather than collection size. We evaluate on QASPER (50 papers, 173 questions) under two protocols differing only in whether the benchmark supplies the relevant document, with bootstrap confidence intervals and paired significance tests throughout. The results are mixed and we report them as such. When the document is given, SCT with a zero-LLM extractive compressor matches dense retrieval on answer quality (0.274 vs. 0.277 F1, $p = 0.37$) using 30% fewer context tokens and no LLM calls to build the index, and residual storage beats storing full summaries at each node (0.274 vs. 0.205, $p < 0.001$). Increasing the collection fifty-fold multiplies flat retrieval's per-query scoring work by 48.9x and SCT's by 6.4x. Progressive descent itself is not supported. Retrieving the same residuals without the tree performs identically when the document is given ($p = 0.27$), and descent is substantially worse when the system must select the document (0.122 vs. 0.165, $p < 0.001$). Routing accuracy localises the cause: descent selects the correct paper 20.2% of the time against 39.3% for flat retrieval, because that choice is made from the root residual, the most compressed node in the tree. We conclude that the residual representation is worth keeping and top-down routing is not.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.21610 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.21610v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21610 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 367 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
eMEM: A Hybrid Spatio-Temporal Memory System For Embodied Agents
arXiv · 3 iun. 2026
Exploring Hierarchical Interest Representation For Meta Ads Deep Funnel Optimization
Meta Engineering · 15 iul. 2026
From code to diagrams: Agentic architecture documentation with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 2 sept. 2026
Selecting a vector store for Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases
AWS · 17 sept. 2026