Hybrid Retrieval for COVID-19 Literature: Comparing Rank Fusion and Projection Fusion with Diversity Reranking

We introduce SciRet, a compute-aware empirical study of retrieval-augmented generation for scientific question answering over CORD-19. Rather than proposing a new model, we evaluate a fixed scientific RAG pipeline across three corpus scales: 1,034 chunks (1K papers), 5,160 chunks (5K papers), and 15,480 chunks (15K papers). The pipeline combines sentence-window chunking, BM25, BGE-M3 dense retrieval, reciprocal rank fusion, optional cross-encoder reranking, and grounded answer generation. Across these settings, hybrid retrieval is more robust than either sparse-only or dense-only retrieval in our setting, reaching Recall@10 of 1.000 at 1K and 15K. In contrast, an MS MARCO-trained cross-encoder reranker reduces precision on the scientific corpus, suggesting that domain mismatch can outweigh the benefits of stronger query-passage interaction. Generation faithfulness measured with RAGAS increases with corpus scale in our setup. Retrieval evaluation uses pseudo-relevance labels derived from the hybrid system, so we treat the results as controlled comparative evidence rather than a benchmark claim. We release code, indexes, and evaluation outputs to support replication and follow-up studies.

Hybrid retrieval, which fuses a sparse lexical retriever with a dense neural one, is widely recommended in the software documentation surveyed in September 2026, usually with reciprocal rank fusion (RRF), on the strength of aggregate gains. We ask what fusion costs on individual queries, treating "do not fuse" as a first-class outcome, in the setting in which hybrid retrieval is deployed: a standard Anserini BM25, five dense encoders spanning 22M-596M parameters and three model generations, a learned-sparse (SPLADE) alternative, and a cross-encoder second stage, on seven BEIR datasets and three fusion functions. Even the best method, dense-weighted score interpolation, ranks relevant documents below the better of its two components on 13-48% of queries and below the deployable dense-only retriever on 8-21% (14-48% and 11-25% at a weight selected under leave-one-corpus-out validation), while beating dense-only in aggregate on every corpus with the primary encoder; the downside is significant under loss-averse risk-sensitive evaluation on six of the seven corpora. We call this loss the fusion tax. It is mostly a ranking effect that preserves recall in aggregate, it is most likely on the queries that only one retriever covers, and it persists across the encoder ladder and the SPLADE substitution. RRF carries the higher tax wherever the dense retriever is clearly stronger and only beats dense-only where the two components are balanced. Fusion failure is weakly predictable within a corpus but transfers unreliably across corpora, because the features that predict it change sign with the sparse-dense balance. A cross-encoder recovers part of the tax only where it is itself reliable. We distill these findings into guidance that keys the fusion decision to the measured sparse-dense balance of the target corpus.

We study a parameterized hybrid ranker that fuses a dense embedding list and a sparse lexical list. The method has a small, explicit parameter vector: a dense prior $α\in [0,1]$, a score-versus-rank mix $λ\in [0,1]$, an RRF smoothing parameter $κ> 0$, optional list-geometry coefficients that move $α$ per query, and a router margin $τ$ that can turn sparse search off. We grid-search those ranges on SciFact train (809 queries) and freeze the chosen values on SciFact test (300). The tuned rank-score mix ($α= 0.8$, $λ= 0.75$, $κ= 20$) reaches 0.753 nDCG@10 and 0.889 recall@10, outperforming dense BGE (0.742 / 0.871) and equal-weight RRF (0.707 nDCG@10) on that test split. A list-conditioned $α$ adds +0.0006 nDCG; a sparse-off router is rejected by the same train split (any $τ$ that skipped approximately 50% of queries lost nDCG). These coefficients are dataset-specific. Equal RRF with the same models does not beat dense on a nine-zip BEIR macro-average (0.479 vs. 0.519 nDCG@10). Repeating the same train-then-freeze sweep independently on all 20 indexed units beats equal RRF on 20/20 and dense on 16/20 (unit-mean nDCG@10 0.467 vs. 0.462 dense vs. 0.420 RRF). Other corpora should reuse the ranges, not a copy of the SciFact point.