Retrieved but not ranked: surface-form bias in structural retrieval, from mathematics to agent trajectories
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
7 of 10 references.
References · 7
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2020ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learningcited by 1,143
- 2023Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Contextcited by 820
- 2019Passage Re-ranking with BERTcited by 629
- 2026MathNet: a Global Multimodal Benchmark for Mathematical Reasoning and Retrievalcited by 5
- 2025A Benchmark for Procedural Memory Retrieval in Language Agentscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Computation Over Geometry: Meaning Identity Is Computed, Not Shipped in the Embeddings
- 2025The Avengers: A Simple Recipe for Uniting Smaller Language Models to Challenge Proprietary Giants
- 2026Geometric Deviation as an Unsupervised Pre-Generation Reliability Signal: Probing LLM Representations for Answerability
- 2026Comparative Approaches to Agent Retrieval over Large Skill Libraries
- 2025Semantic Grounding Index: Geometric Bounds on Context Engagement in RAG Systems
- 2026Beneath the Surface of Chains-of-Thought: A Mechanistic Interpretation of Reasoning Operations in LLMs
- 2026When Does Embedding Magnitude Matter? A Cross-Task Functional-Symmetry Framework
- 2026Measuring Representation Robustness in Large Language Models for Geometry