analiza aiqbench
This study rigorously evaluates whether static embedding models provide complementary value in hybrid retrieval systems that already combine lexical search with transformer-based embeddings like Qwen3-Embedding. The exhaustive analysis of Dutch datasets reveals that forcing the inclusion of low-cost static retrievers actually degrades performance, as optimal fusion weights consistently favor only BM25 and dense vector models. These findings suggest a streamlined two-retriever architecture is sufficient for robust retrieval without incurring unnecessary computational overhead from additional embedding types.
Do Static Embeddings Add Value to Hybrid Dutch Retrieval?
arXiv:2608.02112v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Embedding benchmarks measure standalone model quality, but they do not establish whether a low-cost retriever contributes complementary ranking information once lexical and transformer-based retrieval are already combined. We present a controlled evaluation of this question across Dutch retrieval tasks from the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark for Dutch (MTEB-NL). Weighted reciprocal rank fusion (RRF) combines Best Matching 25 (BM25), Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B (Qwen), and two multilingual static embedding models. Five datasets comprising 14,500 queries and 786,573 documents are scored exhaustively, and fusion weights are searched on a simplex in increments of 0.1. Ten-fold query-level cross-validation selects weights on nine folds and evaluates them on the held-out fold; paired bootstrap confidence intervals and sign-randomisation tests quantify the resulting differences. Fusion improves over the training-selected individual retriever by 0.061 mean reciprocal rank (MRR) on Dutch News, 0.029 on VABB, 0.004 on WebFAQ NL, and 0.025 on Wikipedia NL, while matching BM25 on Open Tender. All four positive differences remain distinguishable from zero after Holm correction. No unrestricted fold assigns positive weight to either static retriever: all 50 selections lie on the BM25-Qwen edge, and forcing a static contribution reduces effectiveness. Leave-one-dataset-out selection chooses equal BM25-Qwen weighting in every iteration and outperforms the cross-domain-selected individual retriever on every held-out task. The results support a two-retriever lexical-transformer architecture as a robust tested default across the evaluated Dutch tasks and show that standalone benchmark performance is insufficient to establish marginal value in hybrid retrieval.
Title:Do Static Embeddings Add Value to Hybrid Dutch Retrieval?
Abstract:Embedding benchmarks measure standalone model quality, but they do not establish whether a low-cost retriever contributes complementary ranking information once lexical and transformer-based retrieval are already combined. We present a controlled evaluation of this question across Dutch retrieval tasks from the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark for Dutch (MTEB-NL). Weighted reciprocal rank fusion (RRF) combines Best Matching 25 (BM25), Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B (Qwen), and two multilingual static embedding models. Five datasets comprising 14,500 queries and 786,573 documents are scored exhaustively, and fusion weights are searched on a simplex in increments of 0.1. Ten-fold query-level cross-validation selects weights on nine folds and evaluates them on the held-out fold; paired bootstrap confidence intervals and sign-randomisation tests quantify the resulting differences. Fusion improves over the training-selected individual retriever by 0.061 mean reciprocal rank (MRR) on Dutch News, 0.029 on VABB, 0.004 on WebFAQ NL, and 0.025 on Wikipedia NL, while matching BM25 on Open Tender. All four positive differences remain distinguishable from zero after Holm correction. No unrestricted fold assigns positive weight to either static retriever: all 50 selections lie on the BM25-Qwen edge, and forcing a static contribution reduces effectiveness. Leave-one-dataset-out selection chooses equal BM25-Qwen weighting in every iteration and outperforms the cross-domain-selected individual retriever on every held-out task. The results support a two-retriever lexical-transformer architecture as a robust tested default across the evaluated Dutch tasks and show that standalone benchmark performance is insufficient to establish marginal value in hybrid retrieval.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
arXiv:2608.02112 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.02112v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.02112 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 342 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
MORPH: Generative Retrieval via Diffusion Transformer with Metric-Ordered Sequence Training and Hybrid-Policy Preference Optimization
arXiv · 7 oct. 2026
[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · 25 sept. 2026
Nutri-ATLAS: Embodied Agent for Tabulated Lookup and Assistance for Smarter nutrition
arXiv · 29 sept. 2026
FlexWorm: Primitive-augmented Hybrid Contact-motion Planning for Suction-based Multi-segment Deformable Robots
arXiv · 18 aug. 2026