PreprintCited by 251Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques

Optimizing Dense Retrieval Model Training with Hard Negatives

Open access
Zhan, Jingtao, Mao, Jiaxin, Liu, Yiqun, Guo, Jiafeng, Zhang, Min, Ma, Shaoping·2021·arXiv

Abstract

Ranking has always been one of the top concerns in information retrieval researches. For decades, the lexical matching signal has dominated the ad-hoc retrieval process, but solely using this signal in retrieval may cause the vocabulary mismatch problem. In recent years, with the development of representation learning techniques, many researchers turn to Dense Retrieval (DR) models for better ranking performance. Although several existing DR models have already obtained promising results, their performance improvement heavily relies on the sampling of training examples. Many effective sampling strategies are not efficient enough for practical usage, and for most of them, there still lacks theoretical analysis in how and why performance improvement happens. To shed light on these research questions, we theoretically investigate different training strategies for DR models and try to explain why hard negative sampling performs better than random sampling. Through the analysis, we also find that there are many potential risks in static hard negative sampling, which is employed by many existing training methods. Therefore, we propose two training strategies named a Stable Training Algorithm for dense Retrieval (STAR) and a query-side training Algorithm for Directly Optimizing Ranking pErformance (ADORE), respectively. STAR improves the stability of DR training process by introducing random negatives. ADORE replaces the widely-adopted static hard negative sampling method with a dynamic one to directly optimize the ranking performance. Experimental results on two publicly available retrieval benchmark datasets show that either strategy gains significant improvements over existing competitive baselines and a combination of them leads to the best performance.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2104.08051

Cites

37 of 37 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

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: 2

  1. [19]19. Tie-Yan Liu. 2009. Learning to rank for information retrieval. Foundations and trends in information retrieval 3, 3 (2009), 225-331.
  2. [31]31. Peilin Yang, Hui Fang, and Jimmy Lin. 2018. Anserini: Reproducible ranking baselines using Lucene. Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ) 10, 4 (2018), 1-20.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhan, J., Mao, J., Liu, Y., Guo, J., Zhang, M., & Ma, S.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Renmin University of China (CN)
  • Institute of Computing Technology (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Pages
1503-1512
OpenAlex
W3155895380
Cited by
251
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 12
FWCI
40.50
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61732008, 61532011)
  • Tsinghua University
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC0831700, 61732008)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Keywords
dense retrieval, hard negative sampling, training strategies, ranking optimization, training stability, stars, ADORE, word matching, vocabulary mismatch, ad hoc retrieval

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