Evaluates Chinese medical text embedding models across retrieval, reranking, and semantic textual similarity tasks. It probes the model's ability to capture domain-specific semantic alignment while measuring the trade-off between retrieval accuracy and inference efficiency. Use when the user wants to benchmark on CMedTEB, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Avg.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill cmedteb-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Cmedteb Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-cmedteb-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: cmedteb-eval
description: Evaluates Chinese medical text embedding models across retrieval, reranking, and semantic textual similarity tasks. It probes the model's ability to capture domain-specific semantic alignment while measuring the trade-off between retrieval accuracy and inference efficiency. Use when the user wants to benchmark on CMedTEB, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Avg.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2604.10937
bibtex_key: jiang2026cmedteb
confidence: high
---
# cmedteb-eval
> CMedTEB & CARE: Benchmarking and Enabling Efficient Chinese Medical Retrieval via Asymmetric Encoders — Jiang et al. (2026) (arXiv:2604.10937, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates Chinese medical text embedding models across retrieval, reranking, and semantic textual similarity tasks. It probes the model's ability to capture domain-specific semantic alignment while measuring the trade-off between retrieval accuracy and inference efficiency.
## Datasets
- **CMedTEB** — total ?; splits: CMed v1 (-1), CMed v2 (-1), Retrieval (-1), Rerank (-1), STS (-1); repo https://github.com/PhilipGAQ/CARE
## Metrics
- `MAP@10` — range: [0, 1]
- Mean Average Precision at 10. Computes the average precision of retrieved documents up to rank 10, averaged over all queries.
- `nDCG@10` — range: [0, 1]
- Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain at 10. Measures ranking quality by discounting gains logarithmically based on position, normalized by the ideal ranking.
- `Pearson` — range: [-1, 1]
- Pearson correlation coefficient measuring linear correlation between predicted similarity scores and ground-truth human ratings.
- `Avg` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Arithmetic mean of MAP@10 (CMed v1), MAP@10 (CMed v2), nDCG@10 (Retrieval), MAP@10 (Rerank), and Pearson (STS).
## Input / output format
**Input**: Query-document pairs for embedding generation; queries with candidate document sets for retrieval/reranking; sentence pairs for STS.
**Output**: Dense embedding vectors for queries and documents; ranked lists of document IDs/scores for retrieval/reranking; similarity scores for STS.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def map_at_10(retrieved, relevant):
hits = 0; scores = []
for i, doc in enumerate(retrieved[:10]):
if doc in relevant:
hits += 1
scores.append(hits / (i + 1))
return sum(scores) / len(relevant) if relevant else 0
def ndcg_at_10(retrieved, relevant):
dcg = sum(1 / log2(i + 2) for i, doc in enumerate(retrieved[:10]) if doc in relevant)
ideal = sum(1 / log2(i + 2) for i in range(min(len(relevant), 10)))
return dcg / ideal if ideal > 0 else 0
pearson = scipy.stats.pearsonr(pred_scores, gold_scores)[0]
avg = (map_v1 + map_v2 + ndcg + map_rerank + pearson) / 5
```
## Common pitfalls
- Confusing total model parameters with online inference parameters; the benchmark emphasizes that asymmetric models only count the lightweight query encoder for latency/cost.
- Averaging metrics across different tasks (retrieval, reranking, STS) without noting that STS uses Pearson correlation (0-1 range) while MAP/nDCG are percentages, which can skew the 'Avg' interpretation.
- Assuming symmetric baselines are directly comparable in latency; the paper explicitly notes that symmetric giants incur prohibitive computational costs despite higher accuracy.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Table 2 presents the evaluation of CARE series on the CMedTEB benchmark, alongside strong open-source baselines. We observe two key findings: (1) CARE establishes a new state of the art: the 0.3B-4B variant achieves an average score of 78.13, and the 0.3B-8B variant reaches 78.94, surpassing the strongest baseline gte-Qwen2-1.5B-instruct (77.61, a decoder-only model), despite using a much smaller query encoder.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{jiang2026cmedteb,
title={CMedTEB & CARE: Benchmarking and Enabling Efficient Chinese Medical Retrieval via Asymmetric Encoders},
author={Jiang et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2604.10937}
}
```
- arXiv: 2604.10937
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!