Cited by 41Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingAlgorithms and Data Compression

Predicting Efficiency/Effectiveness Trade-offs for Dense vs. Sparse Retrieval Strategy Selection

Open access
Arabzadeh, Negar, Yan, Xinyi, Clarke, Charles L. A.·2021·Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management

Abstract

Over the last few years, contextualized pre-trained transformer models such as BERT have provided substantial improvements on information retrieval tasks. Traditional sparse retrieval methods such as BM25 rely on high-dimensional, sparse, bag-of-words query representations to retrieve documents. On the other hand, recent approaches based on pre-trained transformer models such as BERT, fine-tune dense low-dimensional contextualized representations of queries and documents in embedding space. While these dense retrievers enjoy substantial retrieval effectiveness improvements compared to sparse retrievers, they are computationally intensive, requiring substantial GPU resources, and dense retrievers are known to be more expensive from both time and resource perspectives. In addition, sparse retrievers have been shown to retrieve complementary information with respect to dense retrievers, leading to proposals for hybrid retrievers. These hybrid retrievers leverage low-cost, exact-matching based sparse retrievers along with dense retrievers to bridge the semantic gaps between query and documents. In this work, we address this trade-off between the cost and utility of sparse vs dense retrievers by proposing a classifier to select a suitable retrieval strategy (i.e., sparse vs. dense vs. hybrid) for individual queries. Leveraging sparse retrievers for queries which can be answered with sparse retrievers decreases the number of calls to GPUs. Consequently, while utility is maintained, query latency decreases. Although we use less computational resources and spend less time, we still achieve improved performance. Our classifier can select between sparse and dense retrieval strategies based on the query alone. We conduct experiments on the MS MARCO passage dataset demonstrating an improved range of efficiency/effectiveness trade-offs between purely sparse, purely dense or hybrid retrieval strategies, allowing an appropriate strategy to be selected based on a target latency and resource budget.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3459637.3482159

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two primary retrieval methods are suitable for non-parametric memory: sparse methods based on bag-of-words models and dense methods based on deep representation learning.

    “Based on our review of existing work, we identify two primary retrieval methods suitable for non-parametric memory including sparse methods based on bag-of-words models and dense methods based on deep representation learning for vector encoding and relevance score calculation [269, 270, 232, 271].”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [269]

    The Introduction describes sparse retrievers as using bag-of-words representations and dense retrievers as using pretrained transformer models to encode queries and documents and calculate relevance scores. It discusses these as retrieval strategies, but does not address their suitability specifically for non-parametric memory (page unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Andrei Z Broder, David Carmel, Michael Herscovici, Aya Soffer, and Jason Zien. 2003. Efficient query evaluation using a two-level retrieval process. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Information and knowledge management. 426-434.
  2. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018). · arXiv
  3. Yingqi Qu Yuchen Ding, Jing Liu, Kai Liu, Ruiyang Ren, Xin Zhao, Daxiang Dong, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. RocketQA: An Optimized Training Approach to Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08191 (2020). · arXiv
  4. Luyu Gao, Zhuyun Dai, Tongfei Chen, Zhen Fan, Benjamin Van Durme, and Jamie Callan. 2020. Complementing lexical retrieval with semantic residual embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13969 (2020). · arXiv
  5. Shuguang Han, Xuanhui Wang, Mike Bendersky, and Marc Najork. 2020. Learning-to-rank with bert in tf-ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08476 (2020). · arXiv
  6. Sebastian Hofstätter, Navid Rekabsaz, Carsten Eickhoff, and Allan Hanbury. 2019. On the effect of low-frequency terms on neural-IR models. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1137-1140.
  7. Sebastian Hofstätter, Hamed Zamani, Bhaskar Mitra, Nick Craswell, and Allan Hanbury. 2020. Local self-attention over long text for efficient document retrieval. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2021-2024.
  8. Sebastian Hofstätter, Markus Zlabinger, and Allan Hanbury. 2020. Interpretable & time-budget-constrained contextualization for re-ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.01854 (2020). · arXiv
  9. K Sparck Jones, Steve Walker, and Stephen E. Robertson. 2000. A probabilistic model of information retrieval: development and comparative experiments: Part 2. Information processing & management 36, 6 (2000), 809-840.
  10. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oğuz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open- domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04906 (2020). · arXiv
  11. Saar Kuzi, Mingyang Zhang, Cheng Li, Michael Bendersky, and Marc Najork. 2020. Leveraging semantic and lexical matching to improve the recall of document retrieval systems: A hybrid approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01195 (2020). · arXiv
  12. John Lafferty and Chengxiang Zhai. 2001. Document language models, query models, and risk minimization for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 111-119.
  13. Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Distilling Dense Representations for Ranking using Tightly-Coupled Teachers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11386 (2020). · arXiv
  14. Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. MS MARCO: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. In CoCo@ NIPS.
  15. Rodrigo Nogueira, Wei Yang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Jimmy Lin. 2019. Multi-stage document ranking with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14424 (2019). · arXiv
  16. Yifan Qiao, Chenyan Xiong, Zhenghao Liu, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2019. Understanding the Behaviors of BERT in Ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.07531 (2019). · arXiv
  17. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084. · arXiv
  18. Hinrich Schütze, Christopher D Manning, and Prabhakar Raghavan. 2008. Intro- duction to information retrieval. Vol. 39. Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
  19. Chi Sun, Xipeng Qiu, Yige Xu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2019. How to Fine-Tune BERT for Text Classification? CoRR abs/1905.05583 (2019). arXiv:1905.05583 http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.05583 · arXiv
  20. Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. 2020. Approximate nearest neighbor nega- tive contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.00808 (2020). · arXiv
  21. Peilin Yang, Hui Fang, and Jimmy Lin. 2017. Anserini: Enabling the use of Lucene for information retrieval research. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1253-1256.
  22. Jingtao Zhan, Jiaxin Mao, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2020. Rep- BERT: Contextualized Text Embeddings for First-Stage Retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.15498 (2020). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arabzadeh, N., Yan, X., & Clarke, C. L. A.
Affiliations
University of Waterloo (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-10-26
Pages
2862-2866
ISSN
2155-0751 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3200660033
Cited by
41
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3
FWCI
4.77
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Algorithms and Data Compression
Keywords
dense retrieval, sparse retrieval, hybrid retrieval, effectiveness-efficiency trade-off, query classification, BM25, BERT, query response time

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review