<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Learning to Retrieve from Agent Trajectories · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2604.04949/</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/2604.04949/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Learning to Retrieve from Agent Trajectories — mentioned by phoenix120</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49494545</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2604.04949:49494545</guid><pubDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2026 00:28:18 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The blog post appears to get confused and devotes its entire second half to pitching Keenable itself. If the idea is to build credibility for the new benchmark, this maybe was not the best choice. The exact sentence you cite is an example that I&amp;#x27;ve tried everything I could to avoid that. In one of the original revisions it was &amp;quot;We can retrieve very unique documents no one else has&amp;quot;, not &amp;quot;Search engines with their own indexes can retrieve documents no one else has&amp;quot;. &amp;gt; Besides the clear AI smell, this nonsensical claim also plainly contradicts the methodology&amp;#x27;s key evaluation claim that the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2604.04949/"&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>
