Hugging Face Daily Papers · · 4 min read

Factorized Hypothesis Search for Evidence-to-Taxonomy Retrieval

Mirrored from Hugging Face Daily Papers for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Large-taxonomy retrieval often assumes that the input already expresses the target concept. In many settings, however, the input is indirect evidence, such as a table cell whose meaning depends on its row, column, datatype, and context. We call this mismatch the retrieval readiness gap. Our analysis shows that the current index retrieves the target reliably when its semantics are explicit, while raw evidence often leaves it deep in the ranking. We propose Factorized Hypothesis Search (FHS), which maintains multiple partial interpretations over named semantic dimensions. These hypotheses support structured query rendering, multi-hypothesis retrieval, and dimension-level candidate verification. On both financial taxonomy tagging and CodiEsp clinical coding tasks, FHS achieves the best Recall@1, MRR, and final accuracy among the non-oracle methods. Replacing the factorized hypothesis path with a free-text ensemble causes the largest drop in head-ranking performance, while sequential refinement provides no additional gain over FHS's strong parallel first round.</p>\n","updatedAt":"2026-08-11T04:21:08.752Z","author":{"_id":"65d76cc5b9b7b8bf88faa916","avatarUrl":"/avatars/d95232cd0c307efab6197ade1a66190b.svg","fullname":"Yan Wang","name":"YanAdjeNole","type":"user","isPro":true,"isHf":false,"isHfAdmin":false,"isMod":false,"followerCount":7,"isUserFollowing":false}},"numEdits":0,"identifiedLanguage":{"language":"en","probability":0.8925758600234985},"editors":["YanAdjeNole"],"editorAvatarUrls":["/avatars/d95232cd0c307efab6197ade1a66190b.svg"],"reactions":[],"isReport":false}}],"primaryEmailConfirmed":false,"paper":{"id":"2608.06614","authors":[{"_id":"6a7aa2f8019ce76dc7b3aad8","name":"Linhai Ma","hidden":false},{"_id":"6a7aa2f8019ce76dc7b3aad9","name":"Ethan F. Wei","hidden":false},{"_id":"6a7aa2f8019ce76dc7b3aada","name":"Xueqing Peng","hidden":false},{"_id":"6a7aa2f8019ce76dc7b3aadb","user":{"_id":"65d76cc5b9b7b8bf88faa916","avatarUrl":"/avatars/d95232cd0c307efab6197ade1a66190b.svg","isPro":true,"fullname":"Yan Wang","user":"YanAdjeNole","type":"user","name":"YanAdjeNole"},"name":"Yan Wang","status":"claimed_verified","statusLastChangedAt":"2026-08-11T08:45:04.516Z","hidden":false},{"_id":"6a7aa2f8019ce76dc7b3aadc","name":"Lingfei Qian","hidden":false},{"_id":"6a7aa2f8019ce76dc7b3aadd","name":"Víctor Gutiérrez-Basulto","hidden":false}],"publishedAt":"2026-08-06T00:00:00.000Z","submittedOnDailyAt":"2026-08-11T00:00:00.000Z","title":"Factorized Hypothesis Search for Evidence-to-Taxonomy Retrieval","submittedOnDailyBy":{"_id":"65d76cc5b9b7b8bf88faa916","avatarUrl":"/avatars/d95232cd0c307efab6197ade1a66190b.svg","isPro":true,"fullname":"Yan Wang","user":"YanAdjeNole","type":"user","name":"YanAdjeNole"},"summary":"Large-taxonomy retrieval often assumes that the input already expresses the target concept. In many settings, however, the input is indirect evidence, such as a table cell whose meaning depends on its row, column, datatype, and context. We call this mismatch the retrieval readiness gap. Our analysis shows that the current index retrieves the target reliably when its semantics are explicit, while raw evidence often leaves it deep in the ranking. We propose Factorized Hypothesis Search (FHS), which maintains multiple partial interpretations over named semantic dimensions. These hypotheses support structured query rendering, multi-hypothesis retrieval, and dimension-level candidate verification. On both financial taxonomy tagging and CodiEsp clinical coding tasks, FHS achieves the best Recall@1, MRR, and final accuracy among the non-oracle methods. Replacing the factorized hypothesis path with a free-text ensemble causes the largest drop in head-ranking performance, while sequential refinement provides no additional gain over FHS's strong parallel first round.","upvotes":3,"discussionId":"6a7aa2f8019ce76dc7b3aade","ai_summary":"Factorized Hypothesis Search improves retrieval of implicit concepts by maintaining parallel partial interpretations across semantic dimensions for structured querying and verification.","ai_keywords":["Factorized Hypothesis Search","named semantic dimensions","structured query rendering","multi-hypothesis retrieval","dimension-level candidate verification","financial taxonomy tagging","CodiEsp clinical coding"],"ai_summary_model":"thinkingmachines/Inkling-Small","organization":{"_id":"658f4413674349122c0708e9","name":"TheFinAI","fullname":"The Fin AI","avatar":"https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/63b58ed5889aa6707f0bb0f4/ZK5nQKw34W3-eH3p4NAYc.jpeg"}},"canReadDatabase":false,"canManagePapers":false,"canSubmit":false,"hasHfLevelAccess":false,"upvoted":false,"upvoters":[{"_id":"65d76cc5b9b7b8bf88faa916","avatarUrl":"/avatars/d95232cd0c307efab6197ade1a66190b.svg","isPro":true,"fullname":"Yan Wang","user":"YanAdjeNole","type":"user"},{"_id":"678554189d70a30d526a0daf","avatarUrl":"https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/no-auth/hv5jjTv7kNx_S8-07KQH9.png","isPro":false,"fullname":"Rinnkai Ba","user":"lm2445","type":"user"},{"_id":"63ac5701c21e60a3e9b58aa7","avatarUrl":"https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/63ac5701c21e60a3e9b58aa7/g6EX7diOpuA94R2ab-rZC.png","isPro":true,"fullname":"Dipankar Sarkar","user":"dipankarsarkar","type":"user"}],"acceptLanguages":["en"],"dailyPaperRank":0,"organization":{"_id":"658f4413674349122c0708e9","name":"TheFinAI","fullname":"The Fin AI","avatar":"https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/63b58ed5889aa6707f0bb0f4/ZK5nQKw34W3-eH3p4NAYc.jpeg"},"markdownContentUrl":"https://huggingface.co/buckets/huggingchat/papers-content/resolve/2608/2608.06614.md","query":{}}">
Papers
arxiv:2608.06614

Factorized Hypothesis Search for Evidence-to-Taxonomy Retrieval

Published on Aug 6
· Submitted by
Yan Wang
on Aug 11
Authors:
,

Abstract

Factorized Hypothesis Search improves retrieval of implicit concepts by maintaining parallel partial interpretations across semantic dimensions for structured querying and verification.

Large-taxonomy retrieval often assumes that the input already expresses the target concept. In many settings, however, the input is indirect evidence, such as a table cell whose meaning depends on its row, column, datatype, and context. We call this mismatch the retrieval readiness gap. Our analysis shows that the current index retrieves the target reliably when its semantics are explicit, while raw evidence often leaves it deep in the ranking. We propose Factorized Hypothesis Search (FHS), which maintains multiple partial interpretations over named semantic dimensions. These hypotheses support structured query rendering, multi-hypothesis retrieval, and dimension-level candidate verification. On both financial taxonomy tagging and CodiEsp clinical coding tasks, FHS achieves the best Recall@1, MRR, and final accuracy among the non-oracle methods. Replacing the factorized hypothesis path with a free-text ensemble causes the largest drop in head-ranking performance, while sequential refinement provides no additional gain over FHS's strong parallel first round.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter about 15 hours ago

Large-taxonomy retrieval often assumes that the input already expresses the target concept. In many settings, however, the input is indirect evidence, such as a table cell whose meaning depends on its row, column, datatype, and context. We call this mismatch the retrieval readiness gap. Our analysis shows that the current index retrieves the target reliably when its semantics are explicit, while raw evidence often leaves it deep in the ranking. We propose Factorized Hypothesis Search (FHS), which maintains multiple partial interpretations over named semantic dimensions. These hypotheses support structured query rendering, multi-hypothesis retrieval, and dimension-level candidate verification. On both financial taxonomy tagging and CodiEsp clinical coding tasks, FHS achieves the best Recall@1, MRR, and final accuracy among the non-oracle methods. Replacing the factorized hypothesis path with a free-text ensemble causes the largest drop in head-ranking performance, while sequential refinement provides no additional gain over FHS's strong parallel first round.

Upload images, audio, and videos by dragging in the text input, pasting, or clicking here.
Tap or paste here to upload images

· Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2608.06614
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.06614 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.06614 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.06614 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from Hugging Face Daily Papers