PreprintCited by 27Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingRecommender Systems and Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Learning to Rank in Generative Retrieval

Open access

Abstract

Generative retrieval stands out as a promising new paradigm in text retrieval that aims to generate identifier strings of relevant passages as the retrieval target. This generative paradigm taps into powerful generative language models, distinct from traditional sparse or dense retrieval methods. However, only learning to generate is insufficient for generative retrieval. Generative retrieval learns to generate identifiers of relevant passages as an intermediate goal and then converts predicted identifiers into the final passage rank list. The disconnect between the learning objective of autoregressive models and the desired passage ranking target leads to a learning gap. To bridge this gap, we propose a learning-to-rank framework for generative retrieval, dubbed LTRGR. LTRGR enables generative retrieval to learn to rank passages directly, optimizing the autoregressive model toward the final passage ranking target via a rank loss. This framework only requires an additional learning-to-rank training phase to enhance current generative retrieval systems and does not add any burden to the inference stage. We conducted experiments on three public benchmarks, and the results demonstrate that LTRGR achieves state-of-the-art performance among generative retrieval methods. The code and checkpoints are released at https://github.com/liyongqi67/LTRGR.

Overview

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.2306.15222

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Bevilacqua, M.; Ottaviano, G.; Lewis, P.; Yih, W.-t.; Riedel, S.; and Petroni, F. 2022. Autoregressive search engines: Generating substrings as document identifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.10628. · arXiv
  2. Burges, C.; Shaked, T.; Renshaw, E.; Lazier, A.; Deeds, M.; Hamilton, N.; and Hullender, G. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, 89-96.
  3. Cao, Z.; Qin, T.; Liu, T.-Y.; Tsai, M.-F.; and Li, H. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise ap- proach. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning, 129-136.
  4. Chang, W.-C.; Felix, X. Y.; Chang, Y.-W.; Yang, Y.; and Kumar, S. 2019. Pre-training Tasks for Embedding-based Large-scale Retrieval. In International Conference on Learn- ing Representations.
  5. Cossock, D.; and Zhang, T. 2006. Subset ranking using regression. In Learning Theory: 19th Annual Conference on Learning Theory, COLT 2006, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, June 22-25, 2006. Proceedings 19, 605-619. Springer.
  6. Crammer, K.; and Singer, Y. 2001. Pranking with ranking. Advances in neural information processing systems, 14.
  7. De Cao, N.; Izacard, G.; Riedel, S.; and Petroni, F. 2020. Autoregressive Entity Retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
  8. Ferragina, P.; and Manzini, G. 2000. Opportunistic data structures with applications. In Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 390-398.
  9. Freund, Y.; Iyer, R.; Schapire, R. E.; and Singer, Y. 2003. An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. Journal of machine learning research, 4(Nov): 933-969.
  10. Joshi, M.; Choi, E.; Weld, D. S.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2017. TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 1601-1611.
  11. Karpukhin, V.; Oguz, B.; Min, S.; Lewis, P.; Wu, L.; Edunov, S.; Chen, D.; and Yih, W.-t. 2020. Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 6769-6781.
  12. ACL.
  13. Kwiatkowski, T.; Palomaki, J.; Redfield, O.; Collins, M.; Parikh, A.; Alberti, C.; Epstein, D.; Polosukhin, I.; Devlin, J.; Lee, K.; et al. 2019. Natural Questions: A Benchmark for Question Answering Research. Transactions of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, 7: 452-466.
  14. Lee, K.; Chang, M.-W.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. Latent Retrieval for Weakly Supervised Open Domain Question Answering. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6086-6096. ACL.
  15. Li, H. 2011. A short introduction to learning to rank. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 94(10): 1854- 1862.
  16. Li, P.; Wu, Q.; and Burges, C. 2007. Mcrank: Learning to rank using multiple classification and gradient boosting. Advances in neural information processing systems, 20.
  17. Li, Y.; Li, W.; and Nie, L. 2022. Dynamic Graph Reasoning for Conversational Open-Domain Question Answering. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 40(4): 1-24.
  18. Li, Y.; Yang, N.; Wang, L.; Wei, F.; and Li, W. 2023a. Gener- ative retrieval for conversational question answering. Infor- mation Processing & Management, 60(5): 103475.
  19. Li, Y.; Yang, N.; Wang, L.; Wei, F.; and Li, W. 2023b. Mul- tiview Identifiers Enhanced Generative Retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16675. · arXiv
  20. Mao, Y.; He, P.; Liu, X.; Shen, Y.; Gao, J.; Han, J.; and Chen, W. 2021. Generation-Augmented Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4089-4100.
  21. ACL.
  22. Nogueira, R.; and Cho, K. 2019. Passage Re-ranking with BERT. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04085. · arXiv
  23. Pradeep, R.; Hui, K.; Gupta, J.; Lelkes, A. D.; Zhuang, H.; Lin, J.; Metzler, D.; and Tran, V. Q. 2023. How Does Gener- ative Retrieval Scale to Millions of Passages? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11841. · arXiv
  24. Qu, Y.; Ding, Y.; Liu, J.; Liu, K.; Ren, R.; Zhao, W. X.; Dong, D.; Wu, H.; and Wang, H. 2021. RocketQA: An Optimized Training Approach to Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5835-5847.
  25. Ren, R.; Zhao, W. X.; Liu, J.; Wu, H.; Wen, J.-R.; and Wang, H. 2023. TOME: A Two-stage Approach for Model-based Retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11161. · arXiv
  26. Shrivastava, A.; and Li, P. 2014. Asymmetric LSH (ALSH) for sublinear time maximum inner product search (MIPS). Advances in neural information processing systems, 27.
  27. Tay, Y.; Tran, V. Q.; Dehghani, M.; Ni, J.; Bahri, D.; Mehta, H.; Qin, Z.; Hui, K.; Zhao, Z.; Gupta, J.; et al. 2022. Trans- former memory as a differentiable search index. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06991. · arXiv
  28. Wang, L.; Yang, N.; Huang, X.; Jiao, B.; Yang, L.; Jiang, D.; Majumder, R.; and Wei, F. 2022a. Simlm: Pre-training with representation bottleneck for dense passage retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.02578. · arXiv
  29. Wang, Y.; Hou, Y.; Wang, H.; Miao, Z.; Wu, S.; Chen, Q.; Xia, Y.; Chi, C.; Zhao, G.; Liu, Z.; et al. 2022b. A neural corpus indexer for document retrieval. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 25600-25614.
  30. Xia, F.; Liu, T.-Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, W.; and Li, H. 2008. List- wise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning, 1192-1199.
  31. Xiong, L.; Xiong, C.; Li, Y.; Tang, K.-F.; Liu, J.; Bennett, P. N.; Ahmed, J.; and Overwijk, A. 2020. Approximate Nearest Neighbor Negative Contrastive Learning for Dense Text Retrieval. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Li, Y., Yang, N., Wang, L., Wei, F., & Li, W.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
38
Issue
8
Pages
8716-8723
ISSN
2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393153307
Cited by
27
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
9.90
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62076212)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic 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 › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
generative retrieval, learning to rank, passage ranking, rank loss, autoregressive language models, text 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