A Study on the Efficiency and Generalization of Light Hybrid Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid retrievers can take advantage of both sparse and dense retrievers. Previous hybrid retrievers leverage indexing-heavy dense retrievers. In this work, we study "Is it possible to reduce the indexing memory of hybrid retrievers without sacrificing performance"? Driven by this question, we leverage an indexing-efficient dense retriever (i.e. DrBoost) and introduce a LITE retriever that further reduces the memory of DrBoost. LITE is jointly trained on contrastive learning and knowledge distillation from DrBoost. Then, we integrate BM25, a sparse retriever, with either LITE or DrBoost to form light hybrid retrievers. Our Hybrid-LITE retriever saves $13\times$ memory while maintaining $98.0\%$ performance of the hybrid retriever of BM25 and DPR. In addition, we study the generalization capacity of our light hybrid retrievers on out-of-domain dataset and a set of adversarial attacks datasets. Experiments showcase that light hybrid retrievers achieve better generalization performance than individual sparse and dense retrievers. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that there is a large room to improve the robustness of retrievers, suggesting a new research direction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".