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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: ERA enables re-index-free asymmetric dense retrieval by aligning a strong query embedder with a lightweight document index. Unlike conventional symmetric retrieval, ERA trains a lightweight query-side adapter in two stages: self-supervised alignment using unlabeled corpus documents and supervised adaptation using limited labeled query-document pairs.
No Parameter
<1000
Asymmetric
Domain
Adaptation
Methods
Access
Label Train
Embeddings
Generality
Signal
Zero-shot Retrieval
✓
✗
✗
✓
✗
Embedding Adapter ( Sanjeev and Troynikov, 2024 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
Relevance labels
Search Adaptor ( Yoon et al., 2024 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
Relevance labels
Drift-Adapter ( Vejendla, 2025 )
✓
✗
✓
✓
Alignment Only
ERA (Ours)
✓
✓
✓
✓
Alignment + Relevance
Table 1: Comparison of the proposal, ERA, with existing methods. “Adaptation Signal” summarizes the supervision used to train the adapter. ERA combines cross-embedder alignment with relevance-aware supervised adaptation.
Figure 2: The overview of Efficient Retrieval Adapter. In the alignment stage, the same unlabeled document is encoded by both embedders and used as a positive pair. In the adaptation stage, labeled query-document pairs and hard negatives train the same adapter for retrieval.
Base model
Variant
Avg
Academic
Code
Finance
Legal
Medical
Web
BGE-M3
Zero-shot
34.03
34.81
34.85
52.44
37.01
25.25
33.28
Embedding Adapter
26.18
21.66
30.44
42.09
25.24
18.76
26.55
Sym. ERA w/o adapt.
34.17
35.01
33.79
53.58
38.41
25.54
33.35
Sym. ERA
42.14
40.28
40.25
60.77
41.78
32.35
44.08
Asym. ERA w/o adapt.
43.69
39.15
40.16
58.66
40.65
34.49
47.84
Asym. ERA
46.59
42.50
46.19
59.27
45.20
38.24
49.28
Table 2: nDCG@10 (%) on MAIR using 20% labeled query-document pairs. Bold indicates the best result per model and domain. Embedding Adapter and Symmetric ERA use the same model for both query and document embedders. Asymmetric ERA uses Qwen3-8B as the query embedder and the base model as the document embedder.
Figure 3: nDCG@10 of zero-shot, ERA w/o adaptation, Embedding Adapter, and ERA retrieval at varying train ratios, where we use Qwen3-8B as the query embedder.
Figure 4: Domain generality analysis using Qwen3-8B as the query embedder and Qwen3-0.6B as the document embedder, trained on 20% of labeled query-document pairs.
Figure 5: Ablation on negative sampling strategy with varying train ratios.
# Negatives
5
10
50
100
200
nDCG@10 (%)
53.02
52.80
52.89
52.65
52.66
Table 3: Number of negative samples ablation. We set the train ratio to 10%.
Method
nDCG@10
Recall@100
MAP@100
MLP ERA w/o adapt.
50.33
70.79
39.74
MLP ERA
51.84
72.49
41.27
Linear ERA
53.02
72.96
42.39
Table 4: Adapter complexity analysis (%). We set the train ratio to 10%, a query encoder to Qwen3-8B, and a document encoder to Qwen3-0.6B.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Size
Context
Dimension
HuggingFace / API
License
Qwen3-8B ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
8B
32k
4096
Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B
Apache license 2.0
Qwen3-0.6B ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
0.6B
32k
1024
Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B
Apache license 2.0
OpenAI-small ( OpenAI, 2024 )
-
8k
1536
text-embedding-3-small
OpenAI Service Terms 1 1 1 https://openai.com/policies/services-agreement/ [Accessed: May 22, 2026]
BGE-M3 ( Chen et al., 2024 )
0.6B
8k
1024
BAAI/bge-m3
MIT
Appendix
Table 5: Models used in experiments. Dimensions denote the output embedding sizes. Model sizes are not publicly disclosed (-).
Base model
Variant
Avg
Academic
Code
Finance
Legal
Medical
Web
BGE-M3
Zero-shot
34.03
34.81
34.85
52.44
37.01
25.25
33.28
Emb. Adapter
7.48
6.59
14.36
8.92
6.65
4.04
6.60
Sym. ERA w/o adapt.
34.17
35.01
33.79
53.58
38.41
25.54
33.35
Sym. ERA
39.80
38.75
39.62
58.45
39.60
29.65
41.02
Asym. ERA w/o adapt.
43.69
39.15
40.16
58.66
40.65
34.49
47.84
Asym. ERA
45.04
41.25
42.48
58.47
43.31
35.72
48.65
Appendix
Table 6: nDCG@10 (%) on the MAIR benchmark with 5% of labeled query-document pairs.
Base model
Variant
Avg
Academic
Code
Finance
Legal
Medical
Web
BGE-M3
Zero-shot
34.03
34.81
34.85
52.44
37.01
25.25
33.28
Embedding Adapter
17.37
14.68
22.16
27.52
15.27
11.67
17.51
Sym. ERA w/o adapt.
34.17
35.01
33.79
53.58
38.41
25.54
33.35
Sym. ERA
40.77
39.57
38.94
59.36
40.47
31.15
42.43
Asym. ERA w/o adapt.
43.69
39.15
40.16
58.66
40.65
34.49
47.84
Asym. ERA
45.70
42.01
44.20
59.33
44.13
37.16
48.59
Appendix
Table 7: nDCG@10 (%) on the MAIR benchmark with 10% of labeled query-document pairs.
Base model
Variant
Avg
Academic
Code
Finance
Legal
Medical
Web
BGE-M3
Zero-shot
34.03
34.81
34.85
52.44
37.01
25.25
33.28
Embedding Adapter
33.24
28.17
37.72
48.70
33.55
24.28
34.05
Sym. ERA w/o adapt.
34.17
35.01
33.79
53.58
38.41
25.54
33.35
Sym. ERA
43.65
41.18
43.27
61.57
43.39
34.46
45.15
Asym. ERA w/o adapt.
43.69
39.15
40.16
58.66
40.65
34.49
47.84
Asym. ERA
47.27
42.91
47.89
60.50
48.03
38.05
49.49
Appendix
Table 8: nDCG@10 (%) on the MAIR benchmark with 40% of labeled query-document pairs.
Base model
Variant
Avg
Academic
Code
Finance
Legal
Medical
Web
BGE-M3
Zero-shot
55.50
69.34
68.05
84.97
58.20
20.99
54.44
Embedding Adapter
51.49
63.09
65.85
75.59
56.98
19.53
49.82
Sym. ERA w/o adapt.
55.28
70.35
66.55
84.28
58.43
20.76
54.27
Sym. ERA
64.17
78.53
73.59
89.03
66.86
26.56
65.78
Asym. ERA w/o adapt.
65.91
76.80
79.19
89.52
65.44
26.14
68.86
Asym. ERA
68.62
80.58
81.22
90.20
69.77
30.65
70.81
Appendix
Table 9: Recall@100 (%) on the MAIR benchmark with 20% of labeled query-document pairs.
Base model
Variant
Avg
Academic
Code
Finance
Legal
Medical
Web
BGE-M3
Zero-shot
26.93
30.23
29.99
47.80
30.66
11.83
26.39
Embedding Adapter
19.31
17.34
25.66
37.17
21.29
7.43
18.91
Sym. ERA w/o adapt.
27.01
30.49
29.40
49.03
30.22
11.70
26.66
Sym. ERA
33.29
35.28
35.05
56.08
34.70
14.60
35.03
Asym. ERA w/o adapt.
33.34
33.43
34.43
53.55
30.05
13.44
37.63
Asym. ERA
36.20
36.70
40.34
54.55
33.94
16.20
39.44
Appendix
Table 10: MAP@100 (%) on the MAIR benchmark with 20% of labeled query-document pairs.
Figure 6: nDCG@10 comparison between zero-shot, ERA trained on all domains, and ERA trained on all domains except the target domain with varying train ratios, where we use Qwen3-8B as the query embedder and Qwen3-0.6B as the document embedder.
Figure 7: nDCG@10 difference between ERA trained on all domains and ERA trained on the target domain with varying train ratios, where we use Qwen3-8B as the query embedder and Qwen3-0.6B as the document embedder.
Table 12: Retrieval performance (%) on MS MARCO dev (8.8M passages, exact cosine top-100 search). ERA is trained on MAIR and applied to MS MARCO without any in-domain training.
Method
nDCG@10
R@100
MAP@100
Procrustes w/o adapt.
51.13
70.43
40.59
Sym. ERA w/o adapt.
51.12
70.44
40.59
Procrustes label training
51.58
71.72
41.25
Sym. ERA
51.62
71.75
41.29
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison of the closed-form alignment baseline. The train ratio for labal training is set to 10%.
Base model
Variant
Before
Reranked
BGE-M3
Zero-shot
34.14
53.49
Embedding Adapter
26.18
50.04
Sym. ERA w/o adapt.
34.17
53.49
Sym. ERA
42.14
59.29
Asym. ERA w/o adapt.
43.68
60.12
Asym. ERA
46.59
61.86
Appendix
Table 14: nDCG@10 (%) on the MAIR benchmark before and after reranking with Qwen3-Reranker-8B. Top-100 first-stage candidates are reranked. Bold indicates the best result for each base model and column. Asymmetric ERA uses Qwen3-8B as the query encoder and the base model as the document encoder.
Agentic retrieval workflows produce query, retrieval, and stopping traces as a byproduct of answering questions. We study how these traces can adapt a deployed dense retriever to changing workflow distributions without new relevance labels, synthetic queries, or LLM judgments. We introduce Navigation-Informed Embeddings (NIE), a family of trace-derived objectives. NIE-Stop turns the stopping document into a soft positive; NIE-Path additionally uses preceding path documents as hard comparisons and imposes ordinal constraints with geometric decay. A BGE encoder adapted from retained source trajectories improves support Recall@20 on an independent target benchmark from 72.2 to 78.0 overall. NIE-Stop reaches 76.9 overall and 52.3 on long paths; NIE-Path raises long-path performance to 55.4, compared with 46.7 for the unadapted encoder. A shuffled-order control under the full path objective loses 3.2 points. Without public-benchmark training, the same adapter also improves nDCG@10 by 1.9 points on standard BEIR HotpotQA. NIE therefore provides a lightweight adaptation channel for settings where trajectories are already retained, with zero incremental labeling cost.
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.
Zhan Su, Fengran Mo, Jinghan Zhang +4
Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada · Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA · University of Washington, America
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.