Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?
Open accessAbstract
Dense retrieval has become a prominent method to obtain relevant context or world knowledge in open-domain NLP tasks. When we use a learned dense retriever on a retrieval corpus at inference time, an often-overlooked design choice is the retrieval unit in which the corpus is indexed, e.g. document, passage, or sentence. We discover that the retrieval unit choice significantly impacts the performance of both retrieval and downstream tasks. Distinct from the typical approach of using passages or sentences, we introduce a novel retrieval unit, proposition, for dense retrieval. Propositions are defined as atomic expressions within text, each encapsulating a distinct factoid and presented in a concise, self-contained natural language format. We conduct an empirical comparison of different retrieval granularity. Our experiments reveal that indexing a corpus by fine-grained units such as propositions significantly outperforms passage-level units in retrieval tasks. Moreover, constructing prompts with fine-grained retrieved units for retrieval-augmented language models improves the performance of downstream QA tasks given a specific computation budget.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Fact decomposition extracts the same type of information across all sessions in a more uniform and simplified format, aiding retrieval and reading.
“We hypothesize this is because fact decomposition extracts the same type of information across all sessions in a more uniform and simplified format, aiding retrieval and reading (Chen et al., 2023b).”
From LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory (2024) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2023b
Fine-tuning can enable LLM to adapt to specific data formats and generate responses in a particular style as instructed.
“For example, it can enable LLM to adapt to specific data formats and generate responses in a particular style as instructed [37].”
From Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [37]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 2,142 · see citing works
Self-citationA Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093 · see citing works
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.10997 · Cited by 876 · see citing works
“Response generation quality presents hallucination challenge, where the model generates answers not grounded in the provided context, as well as issues of irrelevant context and potential toxicity or bias in the model’s output.”
BackgroundSelf-citationKenthapadi, K., Sameki, M., & Taly, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671467 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
HippoRAG: Neurobiologically Inspired Long-Term Memory for Large Language Models
Gutiérrez, B. J., Shu, Y., Gu, Y., Yasunaga, M., & Su, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.14831 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
“This capacity for single-step multi-hop retrieval yields strong performance improvements of around 3 and 20 points over current RAG methods [8, 27, 41, 53, 54] on two popular multi-hop QA benchmarks, MuSiQue [60] and 2WikiMultiHopQA [25].”
Zhang, Y., Zhao, X., Wang, Z. Z., Yang, C., Wei, J., & Wu, T. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.430 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationLongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory
Wu, D., Wang, H., Yu, W., Zhang, Y., Chang, K.-W., & Yu, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10813 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationModel Swarms: Collaborative Search to Adapt LLM Experts via Swarm Intelligence
Feng, S., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Ebrahimi, S., Palangi, H., Miculicich, L., Kulshrestha, A., Rauschmayr, N., Choi, Y., Tsvetkov, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.11163 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“We envision that temporal updates could be enabled by employing retrieval augmentation (Chen et al., 2023b; Jiang et al., 2023c; Shi et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024f) over unseen documents in conjunction with M ODEL S WARMS .”
- Authors
- Chen, T., Wang, H., Chen, S., Yu, W., Ma, K., Zhao, X., Zhang, H., & Yu, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 15159-15177
- arXiv
- 2312.06648
- OpenAlex
- W4404783040
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 21.84
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- dense retrieval, propositions, document indexing, retrieval-augmented generation, prompt construction, question answering
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