Long-tail question answering presents significant challenges for large language models (LLMs) due to their limited ability to acquire and accurately recall less common knowledge. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems have shown great promise in mitigating this limitation by integrating external retrieval mechanisms. However, dense retrieval models often face the same difficulties when generalizing to rare or niche knowledge. In this study, we introduce RPDR, a novel data augmentation framework that selects high-quality easy-to-learn training data, to enhance dense retrievers. Our approach is built around three core components: synthetic data generation, data selection with Round-Trip prediction to identify easy-to-learn instances, and retriever training with these instances. We evaluate RPDR on two long-tail retrieval benchmarks, PopQA and EntityQuestion, demonstrating substantial improvements over existing retrievers like BM25 and Contriver, especially on extremely long-tail categories. We identify the strengths and limitations of RPDR through detailed human analysis and propose a dynamic routing mechanism to dynamically route queries to specialized retrieval modules to further improve retrieval performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (Top) Negative feedback loop in long-tail question answering in large language model-based systems. (Bottom) We challenge existing findings that dense retrievers struggle on long-tail questions, and argue that through appropriate training, dense retrieval based methods RPDR can surpass BM25 on long-tail retrieval.
Property
PopQA
EntityQuestions
Knowledge Corpus
Source
Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Dataset Statistics
# Relations
16
24
Dataset Size (# Questions)
# Training Set
NA
176.6k
Table 1: Basic statistics of the PopQA and EntityQuestions used in our experiments. “NA" means no such set.
Figure 2: The RPDR framework consists of three main stages: (1) Synthetic Data Generation that generates a pool of long-tail QA pairs. (2) Data Selection with Round-trip Prediction that trains an inverse model to select easy-to-learn samples with reversibility. (3) Retriever Training that trains a dense retriever using the augmented samples.
Method
PopQA
EntityQuestions
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
BM 25
62.6
66.8
46.2
52.8
53.8
61.1
48.3
63.5
41.9
66.7
55.0
69.2
Contriever
52.3
59.3
53.3
61.1
80.0
85.8
42.9
53.3
53.4
61.0
57.3
67.6
BGE
53.9
61.2
57.4
65.3
82.4
87.9
44.7
60.3
55.1
69.8
60.9
75.2
NV-Embed
55.0
62.3
63.5
70.6
89.9
90.6
48.4
61.6
57.1
70.7
71.5
84.3
Table 2: Comparison of retrieval performance between RPDR and baseline retrievers for questions with long-tail, infrequent, and frequent entities in the PopQA and EntityQuestions datasets. “R@k” means Retrieval Accuracy in the top-k retrieved passages. “RPDR-random” is a model trained with randomly sampled data from the augmented long-tail distribution. More details refer to Appendix B .
Generator
Retriever
PopQA
EntityQuestions
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
GPT-j-6B
Parametric
11.3
14.4
18.2
9.7
12.1
12.9
BM25
24.9
19.4
24.5
23.2
27.1
29.8
Contriever
19.2
24.7
39.1
16.5
26.6
30.2
RPDR
30.2
29.7
40.0
28.9
32.8
29.2
GPT-neox 20B
Parametric
13.5
21.2
28.9
10.1
12.8
14.8
Table 3: End-to-end QA exact match accuracy comparison for RAG systems with different retriever and reader models on the PopQA and the EntityQuestions datasets. “Parametric” means the generator models answer the query by their parametric knowledge.
Category
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
Q correct & A correct
74.5
75.7
76.8
78.2
81.3
87.1
Q wrong & A correct
66.8
74.9
68.6
76.6
77.6
85.4
Q wrong & A wrong
62.9
69.8
53.9
62.0
65.8
73.8
RPDR -Random
66.8
70.0
70.0
74.5
82.7
87.3
Table 4: Retrieval performance on the PopQA dataset for retrievers trained with different categories of augmented data. “Q” means the question entity, while “A” means the answer entity. “correct”/“wrong” means the entity can be recovered correctly/wrongly.
Figure 3: Case study of “John XIX”. “Original” means the top-1 retrieved passage from the off-the-shelf Contriever, while “Updated” means the one from RPDR .
PopQA
Method
Long-tail
Infrequency
Frequency
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
R@10
R@20
RPDR
74.5
75.7
76.8
78.2
81.3
87.1
RPDR + RM
79.1
80.3
78.7
80.0
81.3
87.9
EntityQuestions
Method
Long-tail
Infrequency
Frequency
Table 5: Retrieval performance comparison of RPDR without and with the routing mechanism on the PopQA and the EntityQuestions datasets.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Generator
Retriever
PopQA
EntityQuestions
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
LLaMA-3 8B
Contriever
23.7
34.9
39.1
21.8
25.4
30.2
FULL-random
23.3
34.9
42.1
22.6
27.8
33.7
RPDR -random
25.2
32.5
42.0
27.4
27.1
32.4
RPDR
29.8
34.7
41.8
30.1
31.6
33.9
Appendix
Table 6: End-to-end QA exact match accuracy comparison for RAG systems with different retriever and LLaMA-3 8B on the PopQA and the EntityQuestions datasets. “FULL-random” means the retriever model trained on the examples randomly sampled from the same distribution as the data source. “ RPDR -random” means the retriever model trained on the examples randomly sampled from the same long-tail distribution as RPDR.
Figure 4: The Relationship between augmented data scale and retriever model performance. In the left figure, EQ represents EntityQuestions . The x-axis indicates the proportion of the dataset size relative to the full augmentated dataset.
Method
PopQA
EntityQuestions
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
Recall@10
Recall@10
Recall@10
Recall@10
Recall@10
Recall@10
BM 25
54.3
48.5
66.9
41.7
51.3
60.8
Contriever
61.2
67.4
87.3
56.9
63.2
73.1
BGE
66.4
77.5
89.7
61.1
69.8
77.1
NV-Embed
71.8
80.8
94.5
67.3
75.2
81.9
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of retrieval performance between RPDR and baseline retrievers for questions with long- tail, infrequent, and frequent entities in the POPQA and ENTITYQUESTIONS datasets. “Recall@10" means the gold passage being in the top-10 recall results.
Model
Long-tail
Infrequent
Frequent
Contriever
52.3
53.3
80.0
RPDR-random
66.8
70.0
82.7
RPDR (Q wrong & A wrong)
62.9
53.9
65.8
RPDR-trained with full dataset
72.1
71.9
73.4
RPDR
74.5
76.8
81.3
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison across different training data.
Cycle 1
Cycle 2
Cycle 3
Data scale
22k
23k
23k
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison across different training data.
Error Type
Query
Answer
Retrieved Passage
Hard-to-Embed Target Entities
What is Edwin Wallock ’s occupation?
actor, actress
Charles Edwin (died 1756): The Government could field no candidates at the rerun of the election and Edwin was returned unopposed as Member of Parliament (MP) for Westminster … Charles Edwin (died 1756)
Semantic Ambiguity
What genre is Milk ?
biographical film, biopic
Milk: … Freezing of milk can cause fat globule aggregation upon thawing, resulting in milky layers and butterfat lumps. … Milk is often served in coffee and tea. Steamed milk is used to prepare espresso-based drinks such as cafe latte.
Semantic Ambiguity
Who was the director of Finale ?
Ken Kwapis, Kenneth William Kwapis
Finale (software): Finale is the flagship program of a series of proprietary music notation software developed and released by MakeMusic for the Microsoft Windows and macOS operating systems. … including the score for an entire ensemble (e.g., orchestra, concert band, big band, etc.) and parts for the individual musicians.
Unanswerable Queries
What genre is Great Expectations ?
fiction, fictional
Great Expectations: The film adaptation in 1946 gained the greatest acclaim… Following are highlights of the adaptations for film and television, and for the stage, since the early 20th century.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a standard approach for enhancing large language models (LLMs) with external knowledge, mitigating hallucinations, and improving factuality. However, existing systems rely on generating natural language queries at each hop and maintaining a strict architectural separation between retriever and generator, preventing them from leveraging the full representational capacity of the LLM. We propose LAnR (Latent Abstraction for RAG), a unified framework in which a single LLM jointly performs encoding, retrieval, and generation entirely within its own latent space. Rather than generating textual queries, LAnR produces dense retrieval vectors from the hidden states of a designated [PRED] token and uses them to match against encoded document representations from the same model. Furthermore, LAnR adaptively decides when sufficient evidence has been retrieved using a lightweight MLP control head over those same hidden states, eliminating both the separate retriever and explicit token-level stopping reasoning. This design is motivated by our empirical observation that answer token entropy reliably signals retrieval sufficiency. Extensive experiments on six QA benchmarks spanning single-hop and multi-hop settings demonstrate that LAnR outperforms existing RAG methods, while achieving improved inference efficiency through reduced number of retrieval calls and tighter model integration.
To augment Large Language Models (LLMs) for multi-hop question answering, a mainstream solution within Graph Retrieval Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) leverages lightweight retrievers to efficiently extract information from a given Knowledge Graph (KG). However, existing methods often overlook the inherent challenge of sparse semantic information in graphs. Specifically, our experiments reveal that these methods produce biased retrieval Semantic Shortcut Bias and Long-Tail Path Bias, leading to inadequate semantic modeling and limited GraphRAG effectiveness. To address these issues, we propose STAR, a semantic-tuned and tail-adaptive retriever for GraphRAG. STAR integrates two key learning paradigms: token-level interaction learning and path-weighted contrastive learning. The former employs a cross-attention architecture and a hard path mining mechanism to jointly model the query and path, thereby mitigating the Semantic Shortcut Bias. The latter introduces a tailored contrastive learning objective that utilizes tail-adaptive path weighting, designed to optimize the training process and ease the Long-Tail Path Bias. Extensive experiments demonstrate that STAR consistently outperforms baselines, achieving average retrieval performance gains of 1.8% and LLM QA performance improvements of 2.2% across all benchmark datasets. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/STAR-C583.
Precise retrieval of scientific information is fundamentally constrained by long-tailed concepts and high fact-sensitivity of scientific corpora. These challenges often limit the effectiveness of dense retrievers and hallucination-prone LLM augmentation. To address this, we present REPAIR, a self-evolving data augmentation framework for scientific dense retrievers. REPAIR iteratively synthesizes training data to address knowledge gaps by cycling through diagnosis of long-tail concepts, API-guided evidence expansion, and differentiation via hard negative mining. This process effectively grounds retrieval in factual reality to resolve fine-grained distinctions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that REPAIR significantly outperforms 19 strong baselines on nine materials science and biomedical benchmarks. Our work highlights that diagnosing and factually augmenting data to long-tail deficits is essential for robust scientific retrieval.