Knowledge Base Retrieval for College Admissions and Application Placement: Compare Documents and Locate Differences

What this category's data looks like

In the scenario of regular higher education institution admissions and enrollment filing, the materials that enter knowledge base retrieval include admissions plans, filing rules, and admission rosters. The admissions plan contains institution code, major group, planned number, batch, and date; the filing rules contain filing ratio, tie-breaking ranking, withdrawal conditions, and signature field; the admission roster contains candidate number, name, filing score, admitted major, and receipt. The three types of materials are updated by admissions batch and year, and field names, quantities, and dates are prone to differences between versions. When the materials enter the retrieval function, the admissions plan and filing rules are recalled as rule basis, and the admission roster is recalled as record basis, jointly supporting material verification and discrepancy localization.

Configuration and implementation checks

The knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test) only outputs candidate snippets and similarity scores (after mode, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming); the discrepancy list must be continued by subsequent nodes or manually.

Three common errors

• Phenomenon: The name, quantity, or date of the same candidate does not match between the plan and the roster. Cause: The two material versions are not synchronized, and field definitions differ.
• Phenomenon: The signature or receipt of the filing rules and admission roster is missing. Cause: The signature was not completed during material circulation, and the receipt was not archived.
• Phenomenon: There are many candidates, but the ones ranked first are all irrelevant. Cause: The retrieval mode does not match the material form, and rerank is not enabled.

How to verify the setup

Acceptance of this function: Test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle rerank on and off to observe the ranking of the top few items, and record the number of candidates and scores.

Business test: Use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, submit them to the reviewer for confirmation, and write back.

• Switch searchMode in the search test, and compare candidate results across semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes.
• Compare the order of the top few items before and after enabling rerank, and use similarity and limit to see whether key snippets are retained in candidates after filtering and trimming.