What this category’s data looks like
Professional services research report data mainly comes from licensed professional financial information institutions, securities firm self-operated research report libraries, and industry association public reports. Data is updated daily, with newly released reports pushed at scheduled times. Some existing reports will be revised and supplemented along with industry policy updates.
Each document has a fixed structure, including report title, issuing institution, release date, research target, core arguments, and risk warning fields. Some reports include structured data fields: exclusive report number, industry classification code. Document length ranges from hundreds of words of brief comments to tens of thousands of words of in-depth analysis.
What constraints do these characteristics impose on the citation source and traceability link?
The characteristics of professional services research reports impose multiple constraints on the citation traceability process. First, multi-source data requires establishing an association index between issuing institutions and exclusive report numbers to avoid confusion between reports with the same name from different institutions. Second, the fixed exclusive report number field can serve as the core traceability identifier, replacing easily duplicated titles to improve traceability accuracy. Third, the wide range of document lengths requires retaining complete metadata fields during retrieval to avoid losing key traceability information due to truncation. Fourth, the daily update rhythm requires configuring incremental synchronization logic to ensure traceability information for newly released reports is added to the index in a timely manner, while preventing old data from overwriting valid new traceability entries.
Configuration Settings
| Config Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
reference_source_field | ["研报编号", "发布机构", "发布日期"] | The exclusive report number can uniquely identify a single document. Pairing it with the issuing institution and date further eliminates the risk of confusion between reports with the same name |
retrieve_top_k | Top 10 entries | Professional research reports have high content depth. Too many retrieved results increase context redundancy, while too few fail to cover core arguments |
rerank_top_n | Top 5 entries | Precise matching of report sources is required for professional service scenarios. Retaining the top 5 most relevant entries after reranking meets traceability needs |
parse_chunk_size | 1500–2000 characters | Professional research reports have clear paragraph structures. This chunk size retains complete arguments and metadata, avoiding truncation of traceability information |
enable_incremental_sync | Enabled | Required for the daily update rhythm of research reports. Incremental synchronization ensures traceability information for new reports takes effect promptly, while reducing resource consumption from full synchronization |
reference_marker_template | [{Publisher}] {Report ID} | Matches the compliant traceability format for professional service scenarios, while avoiding redundant generic marker text in outputs |
The parameter values provided on this page are common recommended starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material form, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require individual analysis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Misconfigurations
- The model outputs a citation ID that does not match the actual report number. This occurs when
reference_source_fieldis not configured to include the exclusive report number field, and only the title is used as the traceability identifier. This leads the model to generate falsified citation IDs. - The retrieval results include the string
引用标记：［1］. This occurs whenreference_marker_templateis not configured, and the platform's default generic marker format is used without pre-output cleaning. - Vector database logs cannot distinguish report sources from different institutions. This occurs when the issuing institution field is not added as a partition identifier in the index configuration, leading to confusion between metadata from different report sources.
How to Confirm the Configuration is Correct
- Upload a single test report with an exclusive report number, perform retrieval and question answering, and check if the citation markers in the output include the configured traceability field content.
- View the vector database index field configuration, confirm that
研报编号,发布机构, and发布日期have been added as traceability association fields. - Upload a test report released on the current day, wait for synchronization to complete, perform retrieval, and confirm that the traceability information for the new report can be returned normally.
- View system logs, confirm that incremental synchronization-related records exist, and verify that the
enable_incremental_syncconfiguration has taken effect.
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.