What Data for This Category Looks Like
Refractory material-related data comes from three main sources: factory inspection reports from manufacturing enterprises, technical specifications released by industry associations, and test reports from third-party testing institutions. Data update rhythm varies by source:
- Factory data updates in real time with production batches
- Industry specification documents have no fixed update cycle
- Third-party test reports generate with each commissioning batch
Single documents typically include fields such as furnace number, chemical composition (e.g., Al2O3, SiO2 content), bulk density, compressive strength, maximum service temperature, with clear attached units including g/cm³, MPa, ℃. Some inspection reports are multi-page PDFs containing graphical test curves and raw data records.
Constraints on Knowledge Base Retrieval and Recall
Retrieval systems must support filtering data by source and update time to accommodate the multi-source nature and differentiated update rhythm of refractory material data. Specialized fields and fixed units require retrieval matching to strictly correspond to field names and units, to avoid matching failures caused by terminology differences. Long documents and graphical content require retaining the integrity of the same batch of inspection data during segment parsing, to avoid splitting continuous test logic. A single due diligence report must cover multiple batches of data, so recall results must balance coverage and context length.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
segment length | 800–1200 characters | Refractory material inspection reports often contain continuous composition and performance data. Too long a segment splits the same batch of inspection logic, while too short a segment fails to cover complete test items |
similarity threshold | 0.75–0.85 | This category has many specialized terms. Filter low-matching irrelevant documents while retaining similar detection data of the same composition system |
recall count | Top 6–8 results | A single due diligence report covers multiple batches of inspection data. Too many recalls exceed the context window, while too few fail to cover all key parameters |
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 300 seconds | Refractory material inspection reports are mostly multi-page PDFs with large amounts of graphical inspection data, leading to long parsing times |
incremental update trigger threshold | Trigger by file modification time | Factory data updates frequently with production batches. Triggering by modification time synchronizes the latest batch data in a timely manner |
rerank return count | Top 3–4 results | Prioritize returning core inspection data with the highest matching degree to the due diligence target, to avoid redundant information interfering with large model output |
The parameter values provided on this page are common recommended starting points for configuration. The actual values are affected by material form, data volume and business rules. Specific issues require specific analysis, and it is recommended to test on in-house samples before finalizing the configuration.
Three Common Mistakes
- Inspection data for refractory materials is visible in the knowledge base backend, but the associated question answering interface does not return relevant inspection parameters. The cause is that segment length is set too short, splitting the same batch of inspection data into multiple segments. Only partial fragments return during recall, so the large model cannot integrate complete inspection logic.
- When passing a parent ID parameter when creating a knowledge base directory, newly uploaded documents still mount to the root directory. The cause is incorrect parent ID parameter format: the system-generated unique identifier string is not used, or the passed ID corresponds to a non-existent directory.
- Parsing multi-page PDF inspection reports for refractory materials triggers a timeout error corresponding to
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS. The cause is that the configuration item's set value is lower than actual parsing time, without accounting for the parsing duration of multi-page graphical inspection reports.
How to Confirm Configuration is Correct
- Upload a single factory inspection report for refractory materials, view parsed segment content, and confirm that the same batch's chemical composition and performance data are not split into multiple independent segments.
- Enter specialized search terms, verify that the number of recall results matches the
recall countconfiguration, and that results contain accurately matched target field content. - Trigger an incremental update operation, view the update log, and confirm that only modified batch files synchronize to the knowledge base, with no repeated parsing of unmodified documents.
- Call the question answering interface associated with the knowledge base, verify that returned content contains parsed inspection data fields, with no missing key parameters.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.