Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:D81BB213

What is the optimal negative sampling ratio for domain-agnostic QA performance across different model scales

Submitted: 29 May 2026
Review score: 8.17/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: DOI grade
Verified claims: 15
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20439310

Abstract

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement–a reporting guideline published in 1999–there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews an

Research Question

What is the optimal negative sampling ratio for domain-agnostic QA performance across different model scales?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims15
Claim record sourcenot publicly specified

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

Quality Tier

TierDOI grade
BasisReview score and verified-claim count meet DOI-grade public quality 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 lineage15 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.