Mamba Retriever: Utilizing Mamba for Effective and Efficient Dense Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the information retrieval (IR) area, dense retrieval (DR) models use deep learning techniques to encode queries and passages into embedding space to compute their semantic relations. It is important for DR models to balance both efficiency and effectiveness. Pre-trained language models (PLMs), especially Transformer-based PLMs, have been proven to be effective encoders of DR models. However, the self-attention component in Transformer-based PLM results in a computational complexity that grows quadratically with sequence length, and thus exhibits a slow inference speed for long-text retrieval. Some recently proposed non-Transformer PLMs, especially the Mamba architecture PLMs, have demonstrated not only comparable effectiveness to Transformer-based PLMs on generative language tasks but also better efficiency due to linear time scaling in sequence length. This paper implements the Mamba Retriever to explore whether Mamba can serve as an effective and efficient encoder of DR model for IR tasks. We fine-tune the Mamba Retriever on the classic short-text MS MARCO passage ranking dataset and the long-text LoCoV0 dataset. Experimental results show that (1) on the MS MARCO passage ranking dataset and BEIR, the Mamba Retriever achieves comparable or better effectiveness compared to Transformer-based retrieval models, and the effectiveness grows with the size of the Mamba model; (2) on the long-text LoCoV0 dataset, the Mamba Retriever can extend to longer text length than its pre-trained length after fine-tuning on retrieval task, and it has comparable or better effectiveness compared to other long-text retrieval models; (3) the Mamba Retriever has superior inference speed for long-text retrieval. In conclusion, Mamba Retriever is both effective and efficient, making it a practical model, especially for long-text retrieval.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".