Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the limitations of embedding retrieval systems in two domains—competition mathematics and embodied-agent trajectories—by deliberately separating surface form from meaning. The results reveal that traditional retrieval methods fail to identify correct answers when surface variations are significant, achieving a Hit@1 rate of 0.0% in mathematics and performing at or below chance in trajectory tasks. A lexical reranker and LLM reranker show varying degrees of effectiveness in recovering retrieval accuracy, highlighting the importance of task structure over lexical similarity in retrieval performance.
Retrieval systems are fundamentally misled by surface form, with traditional methods failing to find the correct answers even when they are contextually relevant.
We evaluate embedding retrieval where surface form and meaning are pulled apart on purpose: retrieving items that share underlying structure but not wording, in two unrelated domains under one protocol, competition mathematics (MathNet-Retrieve; 500 queries, 117,088-item corpus) and embodied-agent trajectories (ALFWorld-derived; 118 queries, 336 trajectories). In mathematics the failure is complete: strict Hit@1 at the heaviest disguise tier is 0.0% for both production embedders (bootstrap 95% CI [0.0, 0.0]) while the correct item sits in the top 10 nearly always, and in 95.2 to 99.8% of misses the winner is more lexically similar to the query than the correct answer. In trajectories, where surface variation is incidental, the same models land at or near hypergeometric chance when gold must involve a different object, and below chance for all three embedders once gold must differ in object and receptacle: retrieval anchors on literal tokens, not task structure. A lexical reranker control hurts in mathematics and helps in trajectories (closing 26 to 36% of the gap, CIs excluding zero); its sign reveals whether a benchmark's surface variation is adversarial or incidental. An LLM reranker recovers 5 to 63% of the gap in mathematics and 43 to 76% in trajectories; direction replicates across three judges (all 21 cells positive), but effect sizes, tier profiles, and the outlier judge change with domain (paired differences excluding zero everywhere). Mathematics gains concentrate on well-known competitions (+19.8 points, CI [+6.7, +33.2], one of six cells), so part of the recovery is memorization. In a paired downstream experiment (210 queries, graders at 96 to 99% agreement), oracle retrieval was indistinguishable from adversarially bad retrieval (McNemar p = 0.678); the solver's 69.5% zero-shot accuracy is largely a truncation proxy (97 to 100% on finished answers), leaving no headroom.