Relevance-Based Embeddings: Lightweight Candidate Retrieval via Heavy-Ranker Calls

Approximate Nearest Neighbour search indices form the backbone of real-world recommender systems, enabling real-time candidate retrieval over million-item catalogues. Typically, a single point estimate embedding is learnt for every user and every item. At serving time, the user embedding queries the index for relevant items. Since these representations are learnt from sparse interaction data, they are noisy and might fail to capture all the nuances that contribute to ``relevance'' -- ignoring the fundamental uncertainty that is inherent to them. The result is a retrieval pipeline that is systematically biased toward the small minority of popular head items with well-estimated embeddings, at the expense of the long-tail majority of niche, diverse, and serendipitous content. We propose DINOSAUR (Distributional Approximate Nearest Neighbour Search for Uncertainty-Aware Retrieval): a simple and infrastructure-compatible framework to incorporate embedding uncertainty into candidate generation. Rather than indexing point estimates, DINOSAUR samples $S_i$ embeddings per item and constructs an index on this augmented set. Analogously, at query time, a user embedding is sampled. This two-sided stochastic retrieval process implicitly marginalises over embedding uncertainty, without requiring changes to model architecture or ANN index infrastructure. On the analytical side, we show that DINOSAUR recovers standard point-estimate retrieval as uncertainty vanishes, and we characterise how increased embedding variance expands the regions of latent space in which uncertain items are retrievable. Reproducible empirical observations align with these expectations, showing large coverage gains with small losses in offline recall.

We introduce Semantic Recall, a novel metric to assess the quality of approximate nearest neighbor search algorithms by considering only semantically relevant objects that are theoretically retrievable via exact nearest neighbor search. Unlike traditional recall, semantic recall does not penalize algorithms for failing to retrieve objects that are semantically irrelevant to the query, even if those objects are among their nearest neighbors. We demonstrate that semantic recall is particularly useful for assessing retrieval quality on queries that have few relevant results among their nearest neighbors-a scenario we uncover to be common within embedding datasets. Additionally, we introduce Tolerant Recall, a proxy metric that approximates semantic recall when semantically relevant objects cannot be identified. We empirically show that our metrics are more effective indicators of retrieval quality, and that optimizing search algorithms for these metrics can lead to improved cost-quality tradeoffs.

Choosing the right text embedding model is one of the most consequential -- and most frequently under-examined -- decisions in building a retrieval or search system, yet the model that tops a leaderboard is rarely the best choice for a given deployment. This report develops a practical, evidence-based framework for embedding model selection, built on a benchmarking study that evaluates T3EM (Text 3 Embedding Model), a commercial API-based embedding model, against a broad set of open-source alternatives on English-language retrieval tasks, and situates these findings within the wider Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) landscape spanning classification, clustering, semantic similarity, reranking, pair classification, bitext mining, and summarization. Beyond raw benchmark scores, the report traces the full path from embedding model to retrieved result -- how embeddings are produced, how they are indexed and searched at scale, and how document chunking strategy shapes retrieval quality -- so that model choice can be reasoned about as one decision within a complete retrieval pipeline rather than in isolation. The result is a consolidated set of practical recommendations for selecting an embedding model according to task, latency, cost, and deployment constraints.