The de facto paradigm for applying dense retrieval (DR) to new tasks involves fine-tuning a pre-trained model for a specific task. However, this paradigm has two significant limitations: (1) It is difficult adapt the DR to a new domain if the training dataset is limited. (2) Old DR models are simply replaced by newer models that are trained from scratch when the former are no longer up to date. Especially for scenarios where the model needs to be updated frequently, this paradigm is prohibitively expensive. To address these challenges, we propose a novel dense retrieval approach, termed dynamic dense retrieval (DDR). DDR uses prefix tuning as a module specialized for a specific domain. These modules can then be compositional combined with a dynamic routing strategy, enabling highly flexible domain adaptation in the retrieval part. Extensive evaluation on six zero-shot downstream tasks demonstrates that this approach can surpass DR while utilizing only 2% of the training parameters, paving the way to achieve more flexible dense retrieval in IR. We see it as a promising future direction for applying dense retrieval to various tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of DDR framework, built upon a dual-encoder architecture. The general prefix vector learns the general knowledge across tasks, while the domain prefix focuses on the specificity of each task domain. The frozen backbone incorporates both the general prefix and aspect prefix for query encoding, whereas the passage encoder only utilizes the general prefix.
Task
Instruction
NF Corpus
Retrieve scientific paper paragraph to answer this question.
SciFact
Retrieve a scientific paper sentence to verify if the following claim is true.
domains
Science , QA , Fact-Checking , Wikipedia
Table 1. Examples of instruction decomposition for retrieval tasks in the BERRI ( Asai et al., 2022 ) . Each task has diverse domains, which are denoted by experts.
Method
PLM (# Params)
TREC
NFC
SCD
SCF
CLI
DBP
Avg.
SCI QA
SCI QA
SCI SUM
SCI FC
FC
WIKI
DeepCT
BERT-base (110M)
40.6
28.3
12.4
63.0
6.6
17.7
28.1
SPARTA
DistilBERT (66M)
53.8
30.1
12.6
58.2
8.2
31.4
32.8
Contriever
BERT-base (110M)
27.4
31.7
14.9
64.9
15.5
29.2
30.6
ANCE
RoBERTa-base (110M)
65.4
23.7
12.2
50.7
19.8
28.1
33.3
DR
coCondenser (110M)
63.6
28.8
11.5
48.6
19.9
36.3
34.8
Table 2. Zero-shot retrieval results measured by NDCG@10. # Params denote the trainable parameters. The highest results among dense retrievers are bolded, and the second-best results are underlined . We report the results of baselines from their original papers. The labeled domains for each task are listed in colors: Science , QA , Fact-Checking , Wikipedia , Summarization .
Method
PLM (# Params)
TREC
NFC
SCD
SCF
CLI
DBP
Avg.
SCI QA
SCI QA
SCI SUM
SCI FC
FC
WIKI
DDR-prior
coCondenser (2.3M×8)
65.3
31.4
15.4
54.0
22.3
36.3
37.5
w/o routing
coCondenser (2.3M×8)
64.3
30.9
13.5
52.8
22.3
36.3
36.3
w/o prior
coCondenser (2.3M×8)
60.9
31.1
13.2
52.3
20.0
34.6
35.4
Table 3. Ablation study of DDR. We remove the trainable routing and assign uniform weights to all modules (w/o routing). We then remove the prior domain labels and let DDR activate all eight modules (w/o prior).
Dense retrievers excel at first-stage candidate generation but lack effective reranking in zero-resource settings. Existing approaches face a fundamental dilemma: cross-encoders deliver strong reranking quality but require costly supervised training and incur high latency, while unsupervised BM25 reranking consistently degrades dense retrieval performance on most of BEIR benchmarks. We propose DART (Dense Adaptive Reranking at Test-time), which resolves this dilemma by adapting the scoring function at inference time. For each query, the top-ranked documents serve as pseudo-positive examples and the bottom-ranked as pseudo-negative examples, providing noisy but readily available supervision to adapt a bilinear scoring matrix W via a small number of gradient updates. We further introduce a confidence-weighted margin loss and a cross-query momentum buffer that warm-starts adaptation across queries. On six BEIR benchmarks, DART achieves a mean per-dataset relative NDCG@10 gain of +2.1% over the dense retrieval baseline with under 10ms additional latency per query, demonstrating a powerful capability for zero-shot performance enhancement and cross-domain generalization.
Shiyan Liu, Yichen Li
Huazhong University of Science and Technology · ByteDance
Dense retrieval systems increasingly face an asymmetry between complex instruction-like queries and relatively simple, static document collections. While stronger embedders can better understand such queries, re-embedding large corpora or fine-tuning large models is often impractical. We propose Efficient Retrieval Adapter (ERA), a query-side adapter learning framework for re-index-free retrieval adaptation. ERA first aligns the embedding spaces of a strong query embedder and a lightweight document embedder using unlabeled corpus documents, and then adapts the aligned query representation with a small number of labeled query-document pairs. Across 126 MAIR retrieval tasks from six domains, ERA improves average nDCG@10 by up to 8.2 points in symmetric settings and by more than 12 points in asymmetric settings, while using substantially fewer labels than supervised adapter training. These results show that retrieval systems can benefit from stronger query understanding without updating backbone embedders or rebuilding document indexes.
Domain-specific finetuning is essential for dense retrievers, yet not all data pairs contribute equally to the learning process. We introduce OPERA, a data pruning framework that exploits this heterogeneity to improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of retrieval model adaptation. We first investigate static pruning (SP), which retains only high-similarity query-document pairs, revealing an intrinsic quality-coverage tradeoff: ranking (NDCG) improves while retrieval (Recall) can degrade due to reduced query diversity. To resolve this tradeoff, we propose a two-stage dynamic pruning (DP) strategy that adaptively modulates sampling probabilities at both query and document levels throughout training, prioritizing high-quality examples while maintaining access to the full training set. Evaluations across eight datasets spanning six domains demonstrate the effectiveness of both approaches: SP improves ranking over standard finetuning (NDCG@10 +0.2 points), while DP achieves the strongest performance on both ranking (NDCG@10 +1.0 points) and retrieval (Recall@20 +0.4 points), with an average rank of 1.38 across all methods. These findings scale to Qwen3-Embedding, an LLM-based dense retriever, confirming architecture-agnostic benefits. Notably, DP reaches comparable performance in less than 50% of the training time required by standard finetuning.