How well a poetry archive can be searched depends on what the user still remembers, not only on what the model understands. We show this for Classical Arabic poetry, benchmarking nine dense encoders and BM25 over two corpora, three indexing modes and two evaluation protocols. Which retriever wins is governed by how much of a poem's wording the query still carries. On tip-of-the-tongue queries BM25 leads every dense encoder, including an 8B state-of-the-art model (0.746 vs. 0.717 Recall@5); on abstract queries it falls to eighth out of ten (0.392 vs. 0.748). Editing the wording of the same queries shows that this ranking largely reflects query composition: adding one remembered half-verse raises BM25 by 38 points, rewriting the quoted words by hand leaves BM25 level with the 8B encoder, and BM25's sensitivity to remembered wording is significantly steeper than that of the strongest dense encoder. The same axis controls explanation augmentation, whose effect swings from +37 to -39 points. The mechanism splits by system type: lexical containment predicts BM25's behaviour, while embedding proximity predicts dense encoders. Finally, the field's two standard protocols, known-item retrieval and thematic relevance, dissociate on the same systems, a result reproduced by two blind human annotators and by two open-weights judges, one of them under a rubric with no literal-match criterion. A benchmark that reports one protocol, or one query register, can give a materially wrong picture. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ellzo/what-the-query-remembers.
Figures & tables
Query set
n
len
% quote
Cvrs
Cai
Cff
FannOrFlop
244
10.5
32.8
0.368
0.254
0.461
Diwan
258
12.8
2.7
0.151
0.360
n/a
Table 1: The query-abstraction spectrum. % quote is the share of queries sharing a verbatim three-token span with the target poem; C is mean query-document containment against verses, AI explanations and FoF explanations. Thematic queries ( n=200 ) have no target poem and are used only in Track B.
FannOrFlop (tip-of-the-tongue)
Diwan (abstract)
System
verses
AI expl.
FoF expl.
verses
AI expl.
Qwen3-8B
0.717
0.656
0.816 ∗
0.748
0.930 ∗∗∗
BGE-M3
0.693
0.598
0.725
0.574
0.845 ∗∗∗
mE5-large
0.578
0.492
0.717 ∗∗
0.585
0.802 ∗∗∗
jina-v3
0.647
0.504 ∗∗
0.676
0.523
0.756 ∗∗∗
silma-sts
0.566
0.508
0.717 ∗∗∗
0.558
0.810 ∗∗∗
Table 2: Track A, Recall@5, one pipeline throughout. Stars mark a significant change from that system’s verse baseline (paired exact McNemar, Holm-corrected across the ten systems within each corpus and contrast): ∗p<.05 , ∗∗p<.01 , ∗∗∗p<.001 . Confidence intervals in Appendix H . BM25 ranks first on Fann or Flop and eighth on Diwan ; augmentation reverses sign between the two.
half-verse added, n=164
rewritten
System
opening
middle
final
n=79
Qwen3-8B
+.232
+.207
+.128
−.190
BGE-M3
+.287
+.207
+.055
−.266
mE5-large
+.348
+.183
+.079
−.203
jina-v3
+.262
+.140
−.018
−.253
silma-sts
+.274
+.256
+.146
−.139
Table 3: Change in Recall@5 on Fann or Flop when the same queries are edited. Left: one verbatim half-verse of the target poem appended to each non-quoting query, taken from the opening, a middle or the final verse. Right: the quoted words of the quoting queries rewritten by hand at equal length. Last row: BM25’s change minus Qwen3-8B’s (paired bootstrap; ∗∗p<.01 , ∗∗∗p<.001 ).
FannOrFlop R@5
slope
ρ
System
quote
no-qt.
Δ
vs. ref
lex.
emb.
n=80
n=164
Qwen3-8B
0.863
0.646
0.22
ref.
0.17
0.32
BGE-M3
0.875
0.604
0.27
+0.06
0.22
0.35
mE5-large
0.713
0.512
0.20
−0.02
0.25
0.46
jina-v3
0.787
0.579
0.21
−0.01
0.29
0.45
Table 4: Left: verse-mode Recall@5 on Fann or Flop , stratified by verbatim quotation, with slope Δ and its difference against Qwen3-8B (paired bootstrap). Right: within-query Spearman ρ between overlap change and retrieval change ( Diwan , AI explanations); bold marks the better predictor. † gte’s ρemb is not independent of the measure (Appendix C ).
Figure 1: Top: Verse-mode Recall@5 rises monotonically with query-verse containment on both corpora; AI explanations flatten the curve on Diwan . Bottom: The same systems on Fann or Flop , split by whether the query quotes the poem.
FannOrFlop
Diwan
System
Track A
Track B
Track A
Track B
Qwen3-8B
0.717
2.94
0.748
2.83
BGE-M3
0.693
2.47
0.574
2.29
mE5-large
0.578
2.52
0.585
2.35
jina-v3
0.647
2.64
0.523
2.53
silma-sts
0.566
2.75
0.558
2.63
Table 5: Track A (known-item Recall@5) beside Track B (thematic judge score, 1 to 5), verse mode, n=200 queries per cell with no judge failures. The lower block gives the first rater’s blind human relevance of the top-3 (0 to 2) for the three annotated systems.
Figure 2: The dissociation. Each point is a system; x is known-item Recall@5, y is the thematic judge score. Top: on Fann or Flop , BM25 (red diamond) is the best system on one axis and the worst on the other. Bottom: on Diwan , where no query carries remembered wording, the two protocols broadly agree.
FannOrFlop
Diwan
Index configuration
all
quote
no-qt.
all
verses only
0.717
0.863
0.646
0.748
AI expl. only
0.656
0.713
0.628
0.930
FoF expl. only
0.816
0.812
0.817
n/a
vrs. ⊕ AI expl.
0.730
0.800
0.695
0.857
vrs. ⊕ FoF expl.
0.824
0.912
0.780
n/a
Table 6: Reciprocal-rank fusion over index configurations, Qwen3-8B. ⊕ denotes RRF ( k=60 ). Fusing explanations is safe everywhere; adding a lexical arm helps only where queries carry remembered wording.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Within-query ρ per system under a lexical and an embedding overlap measure.
≥2
≥3
≥4
≥5
System
qt.
no-qt.
qt.
no-qt.
qt.
no-qt.
qt.
no-qt.
146
98
80
164
40
204
24
220
Qwen3-8B
0.815
0.571
0.863
0.646
0.825
0.696
0.833
0.705
BGE-M3
0.856
0.449
0.875
0.604
0.950
0.642
0.958
0.664
mE5-large
0.678
0.429
0.713
0.512
0.775
0.539
0.917
0.541
jina-v3
0.801
0.418
0.787
0.579
0.850
0.608
0.917
0.618
Appendix
Table 7: Verse-mode Recall@5 on Fann or Flop , split at verbatim spans of ≥ 2 to ≥ 5 tokens. Subset sizes are given under each threshold.
slope Δ
Metric
BM25
Qwen3-8B
difference
95% CI
p
pHolm
R@1
0.419
0.237
+0.182
[0.040, 0.325]
0.009
0.085
R@5
0.378
0.216
+0.162
[0.046, 0.285]
0.005
0.045
MRR
0.389
0.229
+0.160
[0.045, 0.277]
0.006
0.050
nDCG@10
0.371
0.231
+0.140
[0.035, 0.247]
0.009
0.079
Appendix
Table 8: Quotation slope (quoting minus non-quoting subset) on Fann or Flop , verse mode, and BM25’s difference against Qwen3-8B (paired bootstrap, 104 resamples).
System
Mode
R@1
R@5
MRR
nDCG@10
Fann or Flop
Qwen3-8B
verses
0.566 [0.504,0.627]
0.717 [0.660,0.770]
0.635 [0.581,0.688]
0.667 [0.615,0.718]
Qwen3-8B
AI expl.
0.426 [0.365,0.488]
0.656 [0.594,0.713]
0.530 [0.475,0.584]
0.570 [0.517,0.622]
Qwen3-8B
FoF expl.
0.639 [0.578,0.701]
0.816 [0.766,0.865]
0.725 [0.677,0.773]
0.754 [0.710,0.800]
BGE-M3
verses
0.574 [0.512,0.635]
0.693 [0.635,0.750]
0.634 [0.578,0.689]
0.657 [0.603,0.712]
BGE-M3
AI expl.
0.406 [0.344,0.467]
0.598 [0.537,0.660]
0.489 [0.434,0.544]
0.515 [0.459,0.570]
Appendix
Table 9: Track A in full, with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.
FannOrFlop
Diwan
System
Gem.
Gem-3
Q-orig
Q-neut
Gem.
Gem-3
Q-orig
Q-neut
Qwen3-8B
2.83
3.36
3.17
3.35
2.66
3.29
3.12
3.32
BGE-M3
2.49
3.09
2.80
2.99
2.33
3.00
2.77
2.98
mE5-large
2.48
3.23
3.03
3.11
2.36
3.18
2.91
3.06
jina-v3
2.51
3.19
2.86
3.10
2.48
3.18
3.00
3.11
silma-sts
2.73
3.23
2.99
3.24
2.55
3.17
3.00
3.28
Appendix
Table 10: Track B overall quality on the 100 thematic queries scored by every judge, verse mode: Gemini 3.5 Flash (Gem.), Gemma-3-27B-it (Gem-3), and Qwen3-32B under the original (Q-orig) and neutral (Q-neut) rubrics. The last row gives Kendall τ of each system ordering with Gemini’s.
Corpus
System
sem. rel.
them. coh.
metaph.
coverage
lit. match
prec.
overall
FoF
Qwen3-8B
3.00
2.70
2.94
3.08
3.27
2.80
2.94
FoF
BGE-M3
2.54
2.33
2.55
2.58
3.25
2.37
2.47
FoF
mE5-large
2.60
2.46
2.66
2.58
3.28
2.37
2.52
FoF
jina-v3
2.69
2.48
2.73
2.75
3.15
2.52
2.64
FoF
silma-sts
2.85
2.57
2.84
2.85
2.90
2.62
2.75
FoF
gte
2.42
2.21
2.38
2.46
3.40
2.22
2.37
Appendix
Table 11: Track B by judge aspect, verse mode, n=200 queries per cell. All aspects are scored from 1 to 5 with 5 highest; on lit. match a high score means the results repeat the query’s wording, which the rubric treats as evidence against implicit understanding. Lexical overlap can coexist with genuine relevance, and no claim in the paper rests on this aspect: the ordering from the aboutness aspects alone matches the overall one.
FannOrFlop
Diwan
System
judge 1
judge 2
judge 1
judge 2
Qwen3-8B
2.83
3.36
2.68
3.29
BGE-M3
2.49
3.09
2.34
3.00
mE5-large
2.48
3.23
2.36
3.18
jina-v3
2.51
3.19
2.48
3.18
silma-sts
2.73
3.23
2.56
3.17
Appendix
Table 12: Track B overall quality under the primary judge (Gemini 3.5 Flash, n=200 ) and the open-weights second judge (Gemma-3-27B-it, n=100 ). Scales differ; the orderings do not (Kendall τ=+0.85 and +0.81 ).
Aspect
cell-level ρ
semantic relevance
+0.71
thematic coherence
+0.64
metaphor understanding
+0.26
coverage
+0.68
literal match
+0.29
precision
+0.65
Appendix
Table 13: Cell-level Spearman agreement between the two judges, n=2,000 paired cells.
We propose Latent Terms, a method revealing that models trained for dense retrieval, whether single- or multi-vector, learn representations that can trivially be decomposed into retrieval-ready sparse features. When trained on frozen retrievers, Sparse Autoencoders without any retrieval-specific adjustments extract a latent vocabulary with approximately Zipfian collection statistics, directly suitable for classical sparse retrieval scoring via BM25. This approach enables sparse retrieval while requiring no learned expansion objective or sparse retrieval supervision whatsoever, and can be readily applied to any dense retriever. Latent Terms is able to match or outperform single-vector scoring methods from its own base model as well as comparable SPLADE variants. In addition, it substantially outperforms its base model on LIMIT, a task specifically designed to highlight the failures of single-vector retrieval. Overall, our results highlight that neural retrievers contain more expressive and indexable structure than their default scoring functions expose, but that other methods can nonetheless be leveraged.
Benjamin Clavié, Sean Lee, Aamir Shakir +1
Mixedbread AI · National Institute of Informatics (NII) · University of Tsukuba
Lexical retrieval (BM25) captures exact keyword matches and weights terms by corpus-wide significance, but it is blind to the semantic vocabulary gap: when a relevant document phrases an answer differently from the query, BM25 never retrieves it, and no amount of downstream reranking or fusion can recover a document that was never in the candidate set. We present Cross-Encoder Query Expansion (CE-QE), which reads the per-token relevance attributions of a cross-encoder applied to top semantic search results, selects the terms the cross-encoder treats as decisive, and appends them to the BM25 query. Unlike classical pseudo-relevance feedback, which reuses BM25's own (possibly wrong) top results, CE-QE seeds expansion from the semantic retriever's results, avoiding self-reinforcing query drift. Unlike recent generative query expansion (HyDE, Query2doc), which prompts a large language model to hallucinate text from its parametric knowledge, every CE-QE expansion term is copied verbatim from a retrieved passage, so it cannot introduce vocabulary the corpus does not contain, and its only added cost is attribution extraction on a cross-encoder a hybrid pipeline already runs for reranking. On seven BEIR datasets, CE-QE improves lexical recall substantially where query and answer vocabulary diverge (e.g., NQ Recall@100 from 0.32 to 0.47), and its score-fusion variant (SESF) beats cross-encoder score fusion by 2.5% on Recall@100 and beats SPLADEv2 and ColBERTv2 by 5.3% and 4.6% on nDCG@10, while leaving the underlying BM25 index completely unmodified.
Adam Kahirov, Umesh Deshpande, Swaminathan Sundararaman
Modern retrieval increasingly relies on dense and learned-sparse neural models that are effective but require encoding the entire corpus into a specialized index, rebuilt whenever the model changes. Lexical retrievers like BM25 stay efficient and transparent on a standard inverted index that need not change as models evolve, but suffer from vocabulary mismatch. LLM query rewriting can help, yet prompted rewriters emit well-formed but retrieval-ineffective or harmful-terms, and training against a retrieval reward gives only delayed, sequence-level supervision that obscures which terms helped. We introduce STORM (Stepwise Token Optimization with Reward-guided beaM search), a self-supervised framework for lexical query expansion. STORM trains the rewriter through generation guided by retrieval metrics: at each step, candidate expansions are scored against the BM25 index and low-reward continuations pruned, turning the retrieval reward into a token-level signal that concentrates exploration on retrieval-effective vocabulary. Across TREC DL and BEIR, STORM lets 0.6B-8B backbones match or surpass competitive LLM rewriters while retrieving as fast as plain BM25; at 8B it rivals far larger proprietary rewriters. It further transfers zero-shot to 18 languages (MIRACL), beating dedicated multilingual dense retrievers on average, making STORM a competitive, infrastructure-light alternative to dense neural retrieval.
Arthur Satouf, Giulio D'Erasmo, Yuxuan Zong +3
MILA – Quebec AI Institute & ILLS, Canada · 5Sapienza, University of Rome, Italy · 4Sorbonne Université & ISIR & CNRS, France +2