Fine-Tuning LLaMA for Multi-Stage Text Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive NLP capabilities, existing IR applications mainly focus on prompting LLMs to generate query expansions or generating permutations for listwise reranking. In this study, we leverage LLMs directly to serve as components in the widely used multi-stage text ranking pipeline. Specifically, we fine-tune the open-source LLaMA-2 model as a dense retriever (repLLaMA) and a pointwise reranker (rankLLaMA). This is performed for both passage and document retrieval tasks using the MS MARCO training data. Our study shows that finetuned LLM retrieval models outperform smaller models. They are more effective and exhibit greater generalizability, requiring only a straightforward training strategy. Moreover, our pipeline allows for the fine-tuning of LLMs at each stage of a multi-stage retrieval pipeline. This demonstrates the strong potential for optimizing LLMs to enhance a variety of retrieval tasks. Furthermore, as LLMs are naturally pre-trained with longer contexts, they can directly represent longer documents. This eliminates the need for heuristic segmenting and pooling strategies to rank long documents. On the MS MARCO and BEIR datasets, our repLLaMA-rankLLaMA pipeline demonstrates a high level of effectiveness.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".