SPRINT: A Unified Toolkit for Evaluating and Demystifying Zero-shot Neural Sparse Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, sparse retrieval systems relied on lexical representations to retrieve documents, such as BM25, dominated information retrieval tasks. With the onset of pre-trained transformer models such as BERT, neural sparse retrieval has led to a new paradigm within retrieval. Despite the success, there has been limited software supporting different sparse retrievers running in a unified, common environment. This hinders practitioners from fairly comparing different sparse models and obtaining realistic evaluation results. Another missing piece is, that a majority of prior work evaluates sparse retrieval models on in-domain retrieval, i.e. on a single dataset: MS MARCO. However, a key requirement in practical retrieval systems requires models that can generalize well to unseen out-of-domain, i.e. zero-shot retrieval tasks. In this work, we provide SPRINT, a unified python toolkit based on Pyserini and Lucene, supporting a common interface for evaluating neural sparse retrieval. The toolkit currently includes five built-in models: uniCOIL, DeepImpact, SPARTA, TILDEv2 and SPLADEv2. Users can also easily add customized models by defining their term weighting method. Using our toolkit, we establish strong and reproducible zero-shot sparse retrieval baselines across the well-acknowledged benchmark, BEIR. Our results demonstrate that SPLADEv2 achieves the best average score of 0.470 [email protected] on BEIR amongst all neural sparse retrievers. In this work, we further uncover the reasons behind its performance gain. We show that SPLADEv2 produces sparse representations with a majority of tokens outside of the original query and document which is often crucial for its performance gains, i.e. a limitation among its other sparse counterparts. We provide our SPRINT toolkit, models, and data used in our experiments publicly here: https://github.com/thakur-nandan/sprint.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".