Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

Supervised neural retrievers implicitly encode document-level relevance priors derived from annotation biases, creating a systematic "findability gap" where niche or technical content is consistently under-retrieved regardless of actual relevance. This structural limitation reveals that models are not merely learning query-document relationships but also internalizing preferences for comprehensive, mainstream summaries over fragmentary or specialized material. For practitioners deploying dense retrieval systems, this underscores the critical need to audit training data selection protocols to mitigate these hidden biases in search results.
Sources coveringarXiv, Viakoo, Slack Blog, AWS
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Do Neural Retrievers Prefer Certain Documents? Evidence of Learned Relevance Priors

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2606.02814v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural retrievers are trained to estimate query-document relevance from annotated query-document pairs. Yet annotation protocols may not purely reflect relevance: they select only a subset of documents for labeling, and this selection can favor certain document types over others. We investigate whether supervised bi-encoder retrievers implicitly learn a document-level relevance prior: a query-independent signal encoded in their representation space as a side effect of training on annotated data. We estimate this prior by training simple classifiers on frozen document embeddings and evaluate three state-of-the-art retrievers across multiple IR benchmarks. We find that supervised neural retrievers encode relevance priors that generalize to unseen documents and are consistent across models. These priors create a findability gap: documents with lower prior are systematically harder to retrieve, even when genuinely relevant. This effect appears in supervised dense retrievers but is weaker and less consistent in BM25, and it persists under controlled matched-document comparisons. Using LLM-based explanations, we find that judged-relevant documents tend to be comprehensive, self-contained summaries of mainstream topics, while niche, fragmentary, or highly technical content is often left unjudged. Retrievers internalize this bias, ranking documents with these favored features higher than documents that lack them, independently of their actual relevance. Our findings expose a structural limitation of supervised retrieval: models trained on annotated data do not just learn relevance, but also the implicit document preferences in their training data.

Title:Do Neural Retrievers Prefer Certain Documents? Evidence of Learned Relevance Priors

Abstract:Neural retrievers are trained to estimate query-document relevance from annotated query-document pairs. Yet annotation protocols may not purely reflect relevance: they select only a subset of documents for labeling, and this selection can favor certain document types over others. We investigate whether supervised bi-encoder retrievers implicitly learn a document-level relevance prior: a query-independent signal encoded in their representation space as a side effect of training on annotated data. We estimate this prior by training simple classifiers on frozen document embeddings and evaluate three state-of-the-art retrievers across multiple IR benchmarks. We find that supervised neural retrievers encode relevance priors that generalize to unseen documents and are consistent across models. These priors create a findability gap: documents with lower prior are systematically harder to retrieve, even when genuinely relevant. This effect appears in supervised dense retrievers but is weaker and less consistent in BM25, and it persists under controlled matched-document comparisons. Using LLM-based explanations, we find that judged-relevant documents tend to be comprehensive, self-contained summaries of mainstream topics, while niche, fragmentary, or highly technical content is often left unjudged. Retrievers internalize this bias, ranking documents with these favored features higher than documents that lack them, independently of their actual relevance. Our findings expose a structural limitation of supervised retrieval: models trained on annotated data do not just learn relevance, but also the implicit document preferences in their training data.

Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2606.02814 [cs.IR]

(or arXiv:2606.02814v1 [cs.IR] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.02814 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 339 words

Related coverage