Small scientific claim retrieval set for checking whether research-like evidence can be surfaced in the top results.
Results across the five selected BEIR subsets
Each card shows the same comparison: Cortrix Full Stack against Cortrix Vector Only. Higher Recall@10 and NDCG@10 are better; latency is tracked as p50 milliseconds in the artifact format.
Finance-language retrieval where short, practical questions need the right supporting material rather than loose semantic matches.
The largest corpus in this set and the main sizing driver, useful for stressing retrieval over many candidate documents.
Small corpus with dense relevance labels, useful for seeing whether ranking quality holds when many documents may be relevant.
Few but complex argument-retrieval queries over a large corpus, useful for evaluating ranking on nuanced user intent.
Full Stack creates the signal the page should lead with.
Why these five BEIR subsets?
The benchmark uses five different retrieval directions so the result reads as a broader retrieval-quality signal, not a single-domain best case.
One message: Cortrix should hold up across different query, corpus, and relevance shapes.
The selected subsets cover scientific claims, finance QA, large multi-hop QA, biomedical relevance, and argument retrieval. Together they put the Full Stack profile through small precise corpora, large corpus pressure, dense relevance labels, and complex ranking intent.
This keeps the page from asking visitors to trust one good-looking benchmark. The benchmark story becomes: Cortrix is being tested across meaningfully different retrieval situations, using public BEIR inputs and the same top-ten quality metrics.
| BEIR subset | Corpus | Queries | Qrels |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciFact | 5,183 | 1,109 | 339 |
| FiQA | 57,638 | 6,648 | 1,706 |
| HotpotQA | 5,233,329 | 97,852 | 14,810 |
| NFCorpus | 3,633 | 3,237 | 12,334 |
| Webis-Touche2020 | 382,545 | 49 | 2,214 |
A retrieval benchmark, not an end-to-end agent demo
BEIR-style evaluation asks a narrow question: when a query is issued against a known corpus, does the system retrieve the relevant documents near the top? That is why Recall@10 and NDCG@10 are the main page metrics.
Recall finds relevant material. NDCG rewards ranking it higher.
Recall@10 checks whether relevant material appears in the top ten results. NDCG@10 also rewards placing stronger relevant results higher in that top-ten list.
Retrieval quality only
This benchmark does not claim third-party product superiority, business outcome gains, memory quality, audit coverage, or end-to-end RAG answer quality.
Source-backed runner
- Runner:
benchmarks/cortrix-self/run_benchmark.py run. - API boundary:
POST /api/v1/documents/batch,POST /api/v1/query,POST /api/v1/namespaces. - Artifacts:
run_manifest.json,profile_manifest.json,resource_snapshots.jsonl,cell_result.json,queries.jsonl,sample_manifest.json, andmetric_summary.json.
Result format
Each benchmark value travels with dataset, profile, Recall@10, NDCG@10, latency p50, run date, hardware profile, Cortrix commit, dataset version, methodology link, artifact link, and retrieval-quality scope.
Release artifact fields
The benchmark runner records requested profile semantics separately from the actual API body so public claims stay attached to reproducible artifacts.
| Field | Release value or source |
|---|---|
| Run date | 2026-06-18. |
| Hardware profile | Benchmark artifact field recorded by resource_snapshots.jsonl. |
| Cortrix commit | 420b0b3. |
| Dataset version | BEIR public dataset archives for SciFact, FiQA, HotpotQA, NFCorpus, and Webis-Touche2020. |
| Methodology | benchmarks/cortrix-self/README.md and run_benchmark.py. |
| Artifact | Runner output under runs/<run_id>/ with per-cell metrics and manifests. |
| Scope | Retrieval quality only: Recall@10, NDCG@10, latency p50, and artifact reproducibility. |