Retrieval Grounding Latent Reasoning for Dense Retrieval
Authors: Gang Zhou, Xiongxi Yu, Hu Tian, Yang Wei, Lu Pan, Ke Zeng, Shibiao Xu, Xiaolong Zheng
Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Meituan LongCat Interaction Team · School of Management Science and Engineering, Central University of Finance and Economics · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Reasoning-intensive retrieval requires text representations to capture not only semantic similarity, but also the reasoning needed to determine relevance under a given retrieval instruction. Existing reasoning-enhanced embedding models improve retrieval by incorporating reasoning information into dense representations, yet their supervision is typically dominated by the final retrieval objective. As a result, latent reasoning trajectories may learn shortcut reasoning patterns that preserve retrieval performance without producing meaningful incremental retrieval gains. We propose Retrieval Grounding Latent Reasoning (RGLT), a latent reasoning framework for dense retrieval that explicitly connects intermediate latent transitions with retrieval improvements. RGLT performs non-autoregressive reasoning in hidden space through an instruction-conditioned latent reasoning trajectory constructed from silent tokens. It combines process-supervised explicit-to-implicit distillation with retrieval-grounded supervision, using stage-wise CoT reconstruction to shape intermediate latent states and retrieval-effect credit to optimize incremental retrieval gains across the latent reasoning trajectories. Experiments on reasoning-intensive retrieval benchmarks show that RGLT consistently outperforms strong baselines while preserving efficient embedding inference.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of latent reasoning supervision. Existing methods supervise latent states through state alignment, which does not guarantee retrieval gains during reasoning evolution. RGLT instead transfers stage-wise ranking effects Δk∗ from explicit CoT to latent transitions, ensuring that each reasoning step contributes to retrieval improvement.
Figure 2: Architecture of instruction-conditioned latent reasoning. The query and instruction are first compressed into a unified anchor state. During encoding, the anchor explicitly modulates the key and value representations of appended silent tokens via a gated residual to guide reasoning. Finally, the hidden state of the terminal silent token is directly extracted as the final query embedding.
Figure 3: The training pipeline of RGLT. It illustrates the generation of the latent reasoning trajectory and the subsequent joint optimization using three complementary losses: text reconstruction loss ( Lrec ), retrieval-effect transfer loss ( Leff ), and direct retrieval supervision loss ( Lret ).
Model
Size
BRIGHT
FollowIR
BrowseComp-Plus
nDCG@10
R@10
Robust04
News21
Core17
Avg.
Avg.
R@5
R@100
R@1000
MAP@5
nDCG@5
MAP@5
Score
p-MRR
Standard dense retrievers
BGE-M3
0.6B
11.40
14.39
1.50
21.40
7.50
10.10
-3.90
4.10
21.70
47.20
E5-Mistral-7B-Instruct
7B
16.50
20.12
2.70
28.80
13.70
15.10
-1.50
9.30
37.10
70.20
Qwen3-Embedding-8B
8B
14.00
17.31
3.10
25.50
10.10
12.90
7.20
7.70
31.60
61.30
Table 1: Overall performance on reasoning-intensive retrieval benchmarks. All values are percentages.
Figure 4: Domain-level BRIGHT nDCG@10. RGLT outperforms LaSER on 9 of 12 domains.
Variant
nDCG@10
R@10
RGLT
34.20
39.97
w/o stage retrieval-effect matching
31.26
36.15
w/o intent retrieval-effect matching
31.69
36.85
w/o ST16-vs-base advantage
26.39
32.56
replace effect matching with state alignment
30.64
35.69
Gated retrieval-credit fusion variant
32.14
37.94
Table 2: Component ablations and architectural variants on BRIGHT. The lower block contains independently trained variants and is not a one-factor ablation.
Query representation
nDCG@10
R@10
Base query state
26.39
30.24
Stage 1 terminal (ST4)
32.25
34.96
Stage 2 terminal (ST8)
32.48
35.25
Stage 3 terminal (ST12)
33.56
37.14
Stage 4 terminal (ST16)
34.20
39.97
Table 3: BRIGHT performance of cumulative latent stages. ST4–ST16 are the terminal states of four-token stages.
Method
Latency
Relative
Text gen.
Index cost
(ms/query)
Base retriever (Qwen3-8B)
21.5
1.00×
No
None
Rewrite-then-Retrieve
4000
186×
Yes
None
LaSER (Qwen3-8B)
32.5
1.51×
No
None
RGLT (Qwen3-8B)
24.0
1.12×
No
None
Table 4: Query-side inference efficiency on BRIGHT. Latency is measured over 80 queries with batch size 8 on one NVIDIA A100 80GB GPU.
Figure 5: Impact of the latent budget ( K ) on retrieval performance.
LLMs have fundamentally transformed dense retrieval, upgrading backbones from discriminative encoders to generative architectures. However, a critical disconnect remains: while LLMs possess strong reasoning capabilities, current retrievers predominantly utilize them as static encoders, leaving their potential for complex reasoning unexplored. To address this, existing approaches typically adopt rewrite-then-retrieve pipelines to generate explicit CoT rationales before retrieval. However, this incurs prohibitive latency. In this paper, we propose LaSER, a novel self-distillation framework that internalizes explicit reasoning into the latent space of dense retrievers. Operating on a shared LLM backbone, LaSER introduces a dual-view training mechanism: an Explicit view that explicitly encodes ground-truth reasoning paths, and a Latent view that performs implicit latent thinking. To bridge the gap between these views, we design a multi-grained alignment strategy. Beyond standard output alignment, we introduce a trajectory alignment mechanism that synchronizes the intermediate latent states of the latent path with the semantic progression of the explicit reasoning segments. This allows the retriever to think silently and effectively without autoregressive text generation. Extensive experiments on both in-domain and out-of-domain reasoning-intensive benchmarks demonstrate that LaSER significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Furthermore, analyses across diverse backbones and model scales validate the robustness of our approach, confirming that our unified learning framework is essential for eliciting effective latent thinking. Our method successfully combines the reasoning depth of explicit CoT pipelines with the inference efficiency of standard dense retrievers.
Jiajie Jin, Yanzhao Zhang, Mingxin Li +4
Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China · Tongyi Lab, Alibaba Group
Reasoning-conditioned embeddings can improve retrieval by progressively refining semantic constraints. However, additional reasoning may introduce over-generalized or semantically noisy abstractions that weaken retrieval specificity. Existing methods largely supervise reasoning through final retrieval outcomes, providing limited guidance over the refinement process itself. We propose AURA, a framework that directly supervises intermediate reasoning states according to how well they separate relevant documents from hard distractors. AURA further trains a lightweight utility estimator over prefix-conditioned embeddings to adapt reasoning depth at inference time. On the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, AURA-4B achieves 34.7 average nDCG@10 while using 2.8 reasoning steps and 96 generated tokens per query. Under matched deployment conditions, adaptive stopping reduces latency from 4.6 to 0.76 seconds relative to full-trajectory reasoning. Results on MS MARCO further suggest that this specialization need not substantially degrade conventional in-domain retrieval.
Yingtao Luo, Kangyi Zhao, Shiyi Du +1
Carnegie Mellon University · University of Pittsburgh
Large reasoning models such as DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1 generate extended chains of thought spanning thousands of tokens, yet their integration with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) remains fundamentally misaligned. Current RAG systems optimize for providing context before reasoning begins, while reasoning models require evidence injection during multi-step inference chains. We introduce ReaLM-Retrieve, a reasoning-aware retrieval framework that addresses this mismatch through three key innovations: (1) a step-level uncertainty detector that identifies knowledge gaps at reasoning-step granularity rather than token or sentence level; (2) a retrieval intervention policy that learns when external evidence maximally benefits ongoing reasoning; and (3) an efficiency-optimized integration mechanism that reduces per-retrieval overhead by 3.2x compared to naive integration. Experiments on MuSiQue, HotpotQA, and 2WikiMultiHopQA demonstrate that ReaLM-Retrieve achieves on average 10.1% absolute improvement in answer F1 over standard RAG (range: 9.0-11.8% across the three benchmarks) while reducing retrieval calls by 47% compared to fixed-interval approaches like IRCoT (all improvements significant at p<0.01, paired bootstrap). On the challenging MuSiQue benchmark requiring 2-4 hop reasoning, our method achieves 71.2% F1 with an average of only 1.8 retrieval calls per question. Analysis shows that ReaLM-Retrieve also improves retrieval quality itself, achieving 81.3% Recall@5 with consistently higher precision and MRR than fixed-interval baselines on supporting evidence, establishing new state-of-the-art efficiency-accuracy trade-offs for reasoning-intensive retrieval tasks.
Dongxin Guo, Jikun Wu, Siu Ming Yiu
The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China · Brain Investing Limited Hong Kong, China · Stellaris AI Limited Hong Kong, China