CODER: An efficient framework for improving retrieval through COntextual Document Embedding Reranking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrastive learning has been the dominant approach to training dense retrieval models. In this work, we investigate the impact of ranking context - an often overlooked aspect of learning dense retrieval models. In particular, we examine the effect of its constituent parts: jointly scoring a large number of negatives per query, using retrieved (query-specific) instead of random negatives, and a fully list-wise loss. To incorporate these factors into training, we introduce Contextual Document Embedding Reranking (CODER), a highly efficient retrieval framework. When reranking, it incurs only a negligible computational overhead on top of a first-stage method at run time (approx. 5 ms delay per query), allowing it to be easily combined with any state-of-the-art dual encoder method. Models trained through CODER can also be used as stand-alone retrievers. Evaluating CODER in a large set of experiments on the MS MARCO and TripClick collections, we show that the contextual reranking of precomputed document embeddings leads to a significant improvement in retrieval performance. This improvement becomes even more pronounced when more relevance information per query is available, shown in the TripClick collection, where we establish new state-of-the-art results by a large margin.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it