<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Fine-Tuning LLaMA for Multi-Stage Text Retrieval · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2310.08319/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2310.08319/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Fine-Tuning LLaMA for Multi-Stage Text Retrieval — mentioned by thatjoeoverthr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45062387</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2310.08319:45062387</guid><pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:39:44 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s good reasons to do this. Embedding similarity is _not_ a reliable method of determining relevance. I did some measurements and found you can&amp;#x27;t even really tell if two documents are &amp;quot;similar&amp;quot; or not. Here: https://joecooper.me/blog/redundancy/ One common way is to mix approaches. e.g. take a large top-K from ANN on embeddings as a preliminary shortlist, then run a tuned LLM or cross encoder to evaluate relevance. I&amp;#x27;ll link here these guys&amp;#x27; paper which you might find fun: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.08319 At the end of the day you just want a way to shortlist and focus information that&amp;#x27;s…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2310.08319/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.IR</category></item></channel></rss>
