Natural Hard-Negative Mining from Positives for Instruction-Following Retrieval

Hard negative mining has become the dominant strategy for training retrievers, yet it faces intrinsic limitations: negatives are bounded by corpus availability, selected by retriever score rather than diagnostic value, and increasingly contaminated by false positives as the retriever improves. LLM-based synthesis offers a principled alternative, where negatives that are unconstrained, targeted, and free from false positive risk. But we show that naively incorporating generated negatives into contrastive learning often degrades retrieval performance. We identify and formalize the root cause as a generative-discriminative gap: LLM generation optimizes for fluent, plausible text, while contrastive learning demands strategic violations of relevance at the decision boundary. Our analysis reveals two compounding failure modes: discriminative-agnostic generation, where the LLM lacks an explicit model of query information needs and defaults to generic or topic-drifted text that provides no contrastive signal; and source-dependent shortcuts, where distributional artifacts enable the model to distinguish negatives by origin rather than relevance, causing gradient drift that actively corrupts optimization. To close this gap, we propose CausalNeg consisting of two main modules: (1) CoT-guided counterfactual perturbation for data construction: decomposes why a document satisfies a query into explicit information requirements, then surgically violates individual requirements to construct negatives with controlled, interpretable hardness. (2) Query-view entropy maximization during training: disperses generated negatives across the similarity spectrum, minimizing the mutual information between source identity and similarity scores to suppress shortcut exploitation. We make our code publicly available at https://github.com/mzhangzhicheng/CausalNeg.

Prompted embedding models have recently received increasing attention, particularly for retrieval, where detailed retrieval instructions are provided as part of the retrieval prompt. Several new datasets and studies have examined this setting, showing that the current embedding models often struggle to follow such instructions reliably. In this paper, we study the mechanism of how instructions actually affect the representations of retrieval queries in asymmetric retrieval tasks. We show that models can fail to follow even simple task instructions when query-side distractors are included in the evaluation. We hypothesize that this behavior is driven by the training setup of current embedding models and their evaluation, and show that fine-tuning with added query-side distractors leads to substantial improvements, with minimal effect on other tasks.

Table Retrieval (TR) has traditionally been formulated as an ad-hoc retrieval problem, where relevance is primarily determined by topical semantic similarity. With the growing adoption of LLM-based agentic systems, access to structured data is increasingly instruction-driven, where relevance is conditional on explicit content and schema constraints rather than topical similarity alone. We therefore formalize Instruction-Following Table Retrieval (IFTR), a new task that requires models to jointly satisfy topical relevance and fine-grained instruction constraints. We identify two core challenges in IFTR: (i) sensitivity to content scope, such as inclusion and exclusion constraints, and (ii) awareness of schema-grounded requirements, including column semantics and representation granularity--capabilities largely absent in existing retrievers. To support systematic evaluation, we introduce FollowTable, the first large-scale benchmark for IFTR, constructed via a taxonomy-driven annotation pipeline. We further propose a new metric, termed the Instruction Responsiveness Score, to evaluate whether retrieval rankings consistently adapt to user instructions relative to a topic-only baseline. Our results indicate that existing retrieval models struggle to follow fine-grained instructions over tabular data. In particular, they exhibit systematic biases toward surface-level semantic cues and remain limited in handling schema-grounded constraints, highlighting substantial room for future improvements.