Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) provide a powerful mechanism for decomposing the dense representations produced by Large Language Models (LLMs) into interpretable latent features. We posit that SAEs constitute a natural foundation for Learned Sparse Retrieval (LSR), whose objective is to encode queries and documents into high-dimensional sparse representations optimized for efficient retrieval. In contrast to existing LSR approaches that project input sequences into the vocabulary space, SAE-based representations offer the potential to produce more semantically structured, expressive, and language-agnostic features. Building on this insight, we introduce SPLARE, a method to train SAE-based LSR models. Our experiments, relying on recently released open-source SAEs, demonstrate that this technique consistently outperforms vocabulary-based LSR in multilingual and out-of-domain settings. SPLARE-7B, a multilingual retrieval model capable of producing generalizable sparse latent embeddings for a wide range of languages and domains, achieves top results on MMTEB's multilingual and English retrieval tasks. We also developed a 2B-parameter variant with a significantly lighter footprint.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (Left) Performance across layers on Llama Scope (Llama-3.1-8B) and Gemma Scope (Gemma-2-2B). (Right) Performance with increasing SAE width on Gemma-2. Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Figure 2: (Left) Impact of pruning documents with Top-K (with k=40 for queries). (Right) MS MARCO index distribution for SPLARE and SPLADE (8.8 M documents).
English
Multilingual
Code
Medical
Law
ChemTEB
English Models
SPLADE-v3 [ 49 ]
50.7
38.1
44.5
44.2
40.4
75.6
Lion-SP-8B [ 98 ]
48.5
50.0
53.3
54.4
48.5
71.1
SPLADE-Llama
52.9
54.3
57.3
61.0
49.0
75.9
SPLARE
52.9
56.3
55.1
62.9
51.2
70.0
Multilingual Models
Table 1: Average performance on various MTEB splits. English models are trained on MS MARCO only (§ 5 ). Multilingual models are trained on a large-scale multilingual training set (§ 6 ). Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
indic
sca
deu
fra
kor
XTREME-UP
MIRACL
SPLADE-Llama
91.9
70.4
57.3
65.6
74.8
56.2
69.9
SPLARE
92.3
70.8
57.1
64.8
76.0
58.6
71.7
Table 2: Multilingual comparison of SPLARE and SPLADE ( Top-K=(40,400) ).
English
Multilingual
XTREME-UP
Top Open Source models
e5-mistral-7b-instruct [ 88 ]
57.6
55.8
-
NV-Embed-v2 [ 50 ]
62.8
56.7
-
multilingual-e5-large-instruct [ 89 ]
53.5
57.1
18.7
GritLM-7B [ 67 ]
55.0
58.3
-
SFR-Embedding-Mistral [ 65 ]
59.3
59.4
-
Table 3: Average MTEB retrieval performance of SPLARE (Multilingual) against top models. Multilingual (resp. Eng) refers to MTEB(Multilingual, v2) (resp. MTEB(eng, v2)). At the time of writing (August 24, 2026), SPLARE ranks in the top-10 models on MTEB(Multilingual, v2) retrieval. For XTREME-UP (MRR@10), we report results from [ 51 ] . Unless specified, evaluation for SPLARE is done with Top-K=(40,400) —corresponding to our default model SPLARE or SPLARE-2B.
Appendix figures & tables24 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Value
LoRA rank r
64
Max training sequence length (english models)
128
Max training sequence length (multilingual models)
512
Epochs
1
Batch size (w/ gradient accumulation)
128
Learning rate
5×10−5
Appendix
Table 4: Hyper-parameters.
Dataset
SPLARE
SPLADE-Llama
Arguana
16.0
16.2
Climate-FEVER
18.3
18.0
DBPedia
44.3
44.8
FEVER
76.0
75.8
FiQA-2018
42.4
42.3
HotpotQA
66.8
67.6
Appendix
Table 5: Full results (nDCG@10 unless specified) on BEIR, MS MARCO and TREC DL for English-based SPLARE and SPLADE-Llama models. Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Task Name
SPLARE
SPLADE-Llama
ArguAna
67.4
65.9
CQADupstackGamingRetrieval
59.6
59.3
CQADupstackUnixRetrieval
43.7
44.9
ClimateFEVERHardNegatives
33.4
35.9
FEVERHardNegatives
90.6
91.1
FiQA2018
57.8
57.2
Appendix
Table 6: Full results of SPLARE and SPLADE-Llama on MTEB(Eng, v2). Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Task Name
SPLARE
SPLADE-Llama
AILAStatutes
38.9
36.3
ArguAna
67.4
65.9
BelebeleRetrieval
83.9
83.8
CovidRetrieval
83.3
81.5
HagridRetrieval
98.9
98.8
LEMBPasskeyRetrieval
48.2
48.2
Appendix
Table 7: Full results of SPLARE and SPLADE-Llama on MTEB(Multilingual, v2). Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Task Name
SPLARE
SPLADE-Llama
BelebeleRetrieval
83.9
83.8
MIRACLRetrievalHardNegatives
72.4
70.5
MLQARetrieval
83.8
81.5
StatcanDialogueDatasetRetrieval
30.8
30.5
TwitterHjerneRetrieval
73.2
73.4
WikipediaRetrievalMultilingual
91.7
90.6
Appendix
Table 8: Full results of SPLARE and SPLADE-Llama on the multilingual-only datasets of MTEB(Multilingual, v2). Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Task Name
SPLARE
SPLADE-Llama
Code
AppsRetrieval
28.2
30.7
COIRCodeSearchNetRetrieval
62.1
70.0
CodeEditSearchRetrieval
74.2
75.0
CodeFeedbackMT
56.3
55.5
CodeFeedbackST
78.0
78.8
Appendix
Table 9: Full results of SPLARE and SPLADE-Llama on MTEB domain specific datasets. Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Task Name
SPLARE
SPLADE-Llama
MTEB(Indic, v1)
BelebeleRetrieval
87.1
87.0
XQuADRetrieval
97.5
96.9
Average
92.3
91.9
MTEB(Scandinavian, v1)
DanFeverRetrieval
42.8
41.7
Appendix
Table 10: Full results of SPLARE and SPLADE-Llama on MTEB language-specific benchmarks. Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Model
ar
bn
en
es
fa
fi
fr
hi
id
ja
ko
ru
sw
te
th
zh
de †
yo †
Avg
Baselines (Prior Work)
BM25
39.5
48.2
26.7
7.7
28.7
45.8
11.5
35.0
29.7
31.2
37.1
25.6
35.1
38.3
49.1
17.5
12.0
56.1
31.9
mDPR
49.9
44.3
39.4
47.8
48.0
47.2
43.5
38.3
27.2
43.9
41.9
40.7
29.9
35.6
35.8
51.2
49.0
39.6
41.8
mContriever
52.5
50.1
36.4
41.8
21.5
60.2
31.4
28.6
39.2
42.4
48.3
39.1
56.0
52.8
51.7
41.0
40.8
41.5
43.1
mE5 large
76.0
75.9
52.9
52.9
59.0
77.8
54.5
62.0
52.9
70.6
66.5
67.4
74.9
84.6
80.2
56.0
56.4
78.3
66.6
E5 mistral-7b
73.3
70.3
57.3
52.2
52.1
74.7
55.2
52.1
52.7
66.8
61.8
67.7
68.4
73.9
74.0
54.0
54.1
79.7
63.4
Appendix
Table 11: Multi-lingual retrieval performance on MIRACL dev (nDCG@10). Baseline results are taken from [ 11 , 51 ] . † denotes the two hidden test sets of MIRACL. Evaluation for SPLARE and SPLADE-Llama done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Model
MRR@10
SPLARE
58.6
SPLARE (Eng Only)
41.6
SPLADE-Llama
56.2
SPLADE-Llama (Eng Only)
30.5
Gemini Embedding
64.3
Gemini Embedding (Eng Only)
49.3
Appendix
Table 12: XTREME-UP dataset (MRR@10) - Average Scores. Baselines taken from [ 51 ] . Evaluation for SPLARE done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Model
Avg.
as
bho
brx
gbm
gom
gu
hi
hne
kn
mai
ml
mni
mr
mwr
or
pa
ps
sa
ta
ur
Eng Only
SPLARE
42.6
44.4
49.4
10.2
48.2
39.2
40.9
57.0
49.5
46.5
52.6
47.6
20.1
50.8
49.8
26.3
44.4
37.3
43.5
45.6
48.6
SPLADE-Llama
30.5
31.7
46.8
10.7
45.8
30.7
24.2
54.7
44.5
19.0
48.7
21.8
20.0
45.2
48.2
7.6
23.3
2.2
38.5
27.8
19.5
Multilingual
SPLARE
58.6
63.3
63.1
14.2
60.8
58.8
65.1
67.2
63.2
64.7
65.0
68.9
27.4
64.5
63.3
54.5
66.1
52.7
63.8
63.3
61.2
SPLADE-Llama
56.2
61.2
58.8
14.2
59.4
56.5
62.4
64.1
62.5
62.2
64.5
63.2
29.7
60.5
59.6
53.2
62.2
50.7
62.7
59.0
57.6
Appendix
Table 13: XTREME-UP dataset (MRR@10) - Full scores. Evaluation done with Top-K=(40,400) .
Figure 4: Retrieval Latency ( ms ) when pooling documents (Left) or query (Right) representations with Top-K. In low-latency settings, SPLARE enables higher accuracy for a given level of latency.
Parameter
Value
k
1000
query_cut
30
heap_factor
0.5
n_knn
0
sorted
False
num_threads
1
Appendix
Table 14: Seismic retrieval parameters used to measure latency.
SPLADE-Llama at intermediate layers
Layer No.
18
22
26
31
MTEB(Eng, v2)
43.6
44.5
52.9
Appendix
Table 15: Training SPLADE-Llama models at intermediate layers leads to strong deterioration. At layer < 22, models collapse during training.
Learned sparse retrieval (LSR) models such as SPLADE have traditionally used BERT-style masked language models as backbone encoders. A natural expectation is that replacing BERT with stronger pretrained encoders should improve retrieval effectiveness. However, we find that under standard SPLADE training recipes, backbones with large MLM-head L2 norms can suffer performance degradation and even training collapse under standard SPLADE training recipes. We identify this failure as a scale mismatch in the MLM head: SPLADE directly uses MLM-head outputs to construct sparse lexical representations, and query-document relevance is computed by an unnormalized dot product over these representations. As a result, an inflated MLM-head scale can amplify sparse activations, distort matching scores, and destabilize contrastive training under common training settings. To address this issue, we introduce a simple initialization-time correction that rescales the MLM-head projection by a constant factor before SPLADE training. This zero-cost adjustment improves training stability without modifying the model architecture or training objective. Across both in-domain and out-of-domain retrieval benchmarks, this simple correction substantially improves large-norm backbones such as ModernBERT and Ettin, turning unstable training runs into competitive sparse retrievers. In several settings, the corrected models further match or surpass the classic BERT-SPLADE baseline. These findings suggest that the bottleneck in adapting pretrained encoders to LSR is not encoder capacity alone, but the calibration of the MLM-head scale used to construct sparse lexical representations.
Youngjoon Jang, Seongtae Hong, Jonah Turner +1
Korea University Seoul, South Korea · Independent Seoul, South Korea
Learned Sparse IR models, such as SPLADE, offer an excellent efficiency-effectiveness tradeoff. However, they rely on the underlying backbone vocabulary, which might hinder performance (polysemicity and synonymy) and pose a challenge for multi-lingual and multi-modal usages. To solve this limitation, we propose to replace the backbone vocabulary with a latent space of semantic concepts learned using Sparse Auto-Encoders (SAE). Throughout this paper, we study the compatibility of these 2 concepts, explore training approaches, and analyze the differences between our SAE-SPLADE model and traditional SPLADE models. Our experiments demonstrate that SAE-SPLADE achieves retrieval performance comparable to SPLADE on both in-domain and out-of-domain tasks while offering improved efficiency.
Yuxuan Zong, Mathias Vast, Basile Van Cooten +2
Sorbonne Université, CNRS, ISIR · Sinequa by ChapsVision · CNRS, Sorbonne Université, ISIR
Understanding the multilingual mechanisms of large language models (LLMs) provides insight into how they process different languages, yet this remains challenging. Existing studies often focus on individual neurons, but their polysemantic nature makes it difficult to isolate language-specific units from cross-lingual representations. To address this, we explore sparse autoencoders (SAEs) for their ability to learn monosemantic features that represent concrete and abstract concepts across languages in LLMs. While some of these features are language-independent, the presence of language-specific features remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce SAE-LAPE, a method based on feature activation probability, to identify language-specific features within the feed-forward network. We find that many such features predominantly appear in the middle to late layers of the model and are interpretable. These features influence the model's multilingual performance and language output, and can be used for language identification with performance comparable to fastText, along with more interpretability. Our code and complete figures are available at https://github.com/LyzanderAndrylie/language-specific-features.