Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:AFBA7DAB

Retrieval Accuracy Gap Between Dense and Sparse Models Across Low- and High-Resource Languages in WebFAQ

Submitted: 11 June 2026
Review score: 8.67/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Unverified
Quality tier: Flagship candidate
Verified claims: 5
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20636115

Abstract

Abstract: Abstract Progress in cross-lingual modeling depends on challenging, realistic, and diverse evaluation sets. We introduce Multilingual Knowledge Questions and Answers (MKQA), an open- domain question answering evaluation set comprising 10k question-answer pairs aligned across 26 typologically diverse languages (260k question-answer pairs in total). Answers are based on heavily curated, language- independent data representation, making results comparable across languages and independent of language-specific passages. With 26 languages, this dataset supplies the widest range of languages to-date

Research Question

How does the retrieval accuracy gap between dense and sparse models vary across low-resource versus high-resource languages in the WebFAQ benchmark?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims5
Claim record sourcenot publicly specified

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusUnverified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonPublished before the Gate 2 verification pipeline was activated (2026-06-10). No formal proof or sandbox reproduction has been attempted for this record.

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

TierFlagship candidate
BasisReview score, verified-claim count, and public artifact coverage meet flagship-candidate thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage5 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.