PreprintCited by 74Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Dense X Retrieval: What Retrieval Granularity Should We Use?

Open access
Chen, Tong, Wang, Hongwei, Chen, Sihao, Yu, Wenhao, Ma, Kaixin, Zhao, Xinran, Zhang, Hongming, Yu, Dong·2023·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2312.06648

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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