Lexical Retrieval

Scientific queries are often brief, while relevant papers use specialized vocabulary. Generated query expansion can bridge this mismatch, but earlier work suggests that its value shrinks as the underlying retriever becomes stronger. We test the four generated formats of term lists, a pseudo-document, multiple pseudo-references, and corpus-steered text all together with SPLADE-v3 on NFCorpus, TREC-COVID, and SciDocs. Every condition searches the same frozen document index and follows the same query-side integration rule and 256-dimension budget, isolating the effect of the added content. All twelve method-collection comparisons improve aggregate nDCG@10, with best relative gains of 4.81%, 8.92%, and 9.47%. Eleven remain significant after Holm correction. The gain persists in 103 of 114 interpolation settings, including every setting that assigns at least 30% of the mixture weight to the original query. Shuffled-text and non-contextual lexical-bag controls also remain above baseline in all 24 aggregate comparisons, showing that the added vocabulary carries most of the benefit. A corpus-induced typed concept graph, by contrast, produces no consistent gain, and its relation, depth, validation, random, and gating controls do not rescue it. Generated vocabulary can therefore complement a strong learned sparse retriever, provided that the original query remains strongly represented.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) hands the user's query to whoever hosts the corpus. We propose PILLAR, a Privacy-Preserving RAG (PPRAG) system based on Private Information Retrieval (PIR) in which a client utilizes the k documents most similar to their query from a server-held and publicly known corpus to respond to their query, while the server learns nothing about the query, either its terms or its access pattern. Prior PPRAG constructions rely on dense retrieval alone, translating approximate nearest-neighbor search into many query-dependent rounds of PIR, and pay for it in both latency and retrieval quality. PILLAR instead performs private hybrid retrieval in two stages. A sparse stage issues a small, fixed number of PIR queries against a carefully designed index of precomputed BM25 scores, filtering the corpus down to candidates that share terms with the query without the server ever seeing which terms these are. A dense stage then fetches only those candidates' document embeddings and re-ranks them locally, avoiding the many costly PIR queries that private dense retrieval typically requires. We instantiate PILLAR with two protocols that trade latency against retrieval quality, each built on a different private rendering of lexical search. PILLAR-Bin bins posting lists into a hash table and is a single-round design that achieves lower latency than state-of-the-art private retrieval schemes. PILLAR-Tree turns block-max pruning into an oblivious tree traversal combined with cuckoo hash tables and achieves the highest retrieval quality at lower latency than state-of-the-art schemes.

Identifying intertextual references is central to literary scholarship, but computationally difficult when source material is transformed through paraphrase, allusion, historical language, and translation. We investigate this problem through biblical intertextuality in Karen Blixen's Seven Gothic Tales. Drawing on the commentary to a critical edition, we construct a benchmark of 189 annotated references and evaluate retrieval against all 31,170 verses of historically plausible Danish Old and New Testament translations. We compare TF-IDF and BM25 with multilingual and Danish sentence encoders, examine the effect of linguistic normalization, and fine-tune a Danish encoder using hard negatives and five-fold cross-validation. We analyze performance across automatically derived lexical-overlap strata representing quotations, paraphrases, and allusions. Linguistically normalized BM25 provides a strong zero-shot baseline, attaining an overall R@10 of 0.365 and retrieving every quotation within its ten highest-ranked verses. The best zero-shot dense model achieves a comparable overall score of 0.360 while performing better on allusions. Fine-tuning DFM-large raises its overall R@10 from 0.265 to 0.508 and more than doubles its performance on allusions, from 0.138 to 0.339. However, evaluation against editorial annotations alone understates the model's scholarly usefulness: a literary scholar judged seven of 30 selected rank-one predictions counted as false positives to be meaningful additional references. These findings show both the potential and the epistemic limits of computational intertextual retrieval. Rather than treating scholarly annotations as exhaustive or model outputs as discoveries, we propose retrieval models as heuristic co-readers that recover documented references and generate candidates for expert-led close reading.

Word Sense Disambiguation has advanced rapidly for English and a handful of well-resourced modern languages, but it continues to assume the existence of a sense inventory and a word-to-sense mapping in the source language (Navigli, 2026). These assumptions break down for most historical and low-resource languages, whose dedicated WordNets are either incomplete or still under construction. We present Inspicio, an open-vocabulary retrieval pipeline that links tokens in context to synsets of the Open English WordNet (McCrae et al., 2020) without requiring any source-language inventory or mapping. For each occurrence, an instruction-tuned LLM produces two English translations of the surrounding sentence, a small set of candidate dictionary-style definitions, and a few candidate English lemmas. These outputs drive a hybrid retrieval step that combines dense definition-synset similarity, sparse lemma matching, and Maximal Marginal Relevance re-ranking. We evaluate the pipeline across a 6x6 grid of LLMs and sentence-embedding models on a new bilingual set of manually annotated Latin and Ancient Greek perception verbs, on a subset of PREMOVE dataset (Farina, 2025), and on a diachronic sample of Italian. The best configuration reaches 96% Recall@50 on the perception-verb test set, with each component contributing measurable gains, and remains competitive in the out-of-domain and cross-lingual settings.

Retrieval is the first stage of modern search and advertising systems, selecting a candidate set from a large item universe for downstream ranking and auction. Recent work increasingly leverages LLMs to improve retrieval through query expansion, data synthesis, and retrieval-feedback training. However, the generative component is typically used for query-side augmentation, while final matching is still delegated to a downstream retriever. We introduce CoGR, a retrieval framework that instead trains LLMs to directly construct retrieval representations on both query and item sides. Each generator produces a compact set of keywords, which are matched directly through an inverted index, preserving compatibility with existing keyword-based retrieval infrastructure. CoGR uses a two-stage training pipeline. Supervised fine-tuning first establishes an aligned keyword space, after which co-evolving reinforcement learning alternately optimizes the query- and item-side generators with GRPO against the opposite side's frozen index. Both sides optimize the same query-to-item retrieval $F_1$ objective: the query side receives retrieval $F_1$ directly, while the item side receives a counterfactual marginal reward measuring the change in query-side $F_1$ caused by its generated keywords. Across 10 representative sparse, dense, and generative baselines, CoGR achieves the best performance on both an internal APP Marketplace dataset and the public WANDS benchmark, improving $F_1$ over the strongest baseline by $10.9\%$ and $36.1\%$, respectively. Further analysis shows stable co-evolution and increasingly aligned query--item keyword spaces over training.

Agent-memory systems increasingly buy retrieval quality with structure, transforming raw conversation histories into summaries, embeddings, trees, or knowledge graphs before any question is asked. We ask how much of that benefit comes from the structure itself, rather than from competent retrieval over the raw history. We present ReFind, an agent-controlled search interface that builds no semantic structure at all: it leaves the conversation archive unmodified, indexes it lexically at turn granularity, and combines a generic iterative keyword-search loop with four chat-native controls grounded in empirical refinding work: session-aware rank fusion, local context expansion, temporal narrowing, and skipping already-inspected sessions. A separate reasoning stage answers from the collected evidence. Across a broad suite of conversational-memory tasks (single- and multi-hop QA, event ordering, and fact consolidation), roughly 2,800 questions on precise-retrieval and fact-tracking capabilities evaluated under the incremental multi-turn setting of MemoryAgentBench, ReFind attains the highest mean accuracy (58.2) of any system compared, above the strongest graph- and tree-based memory systems (HippoRAG 2, 53.2), all under a GPT-4o-mini backbone matched to every reused baseline. Controlled comparisons to single-shot BM25, a matched generic-agentic BM25 control, component removals, and agentic dense/hybrid variants separately support the roles of agent control, chat-native controls, and lexical retrieval. On LongMemEval-S/M, the same interface reaches 93.2 +/- 3.3 and 89.3 +/- 6.0 with GPT-5-mini. The results indicate that for precise, evidence-grounded questions over chat archives, much of the benefit credited to elaborate memory structures is recoverable by giving an agent controllable search over the unmodified record, with no LLM-based index construction at all.

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.

A flat BM25 index over one billion documents occupies about 400 GB. Holding it in memory requires DRAM proportional to corpus size. Serving it from disk takes 4-12 seconds per query. Exact top-k lexical retrieval at this scale is therefore impractical within an interactive latency budget. Hierarchical BM25 gives up exact ranking in exchange for fixed bounds on memory and latency. A resident coarse index selects which of ~1K topical, size-balanced document groups a query visits, using two signals: the total frequency of each query term within a group, and, for informative terms spread too thinly across groups for frequency totals to reflect, whether several of them appear together in one document. Selected groups are then searched exhaustively and scored against ~100 KB of global statistics. Every returned score therefore equals the flat index's score, and the approximation is confined to selection alone. The resident footprint is ~4.4 GB, independent of corpus size. Sixteen-term queries over one billion documents return in ~300 ms (4.7x to 5.6x the throughput of a flat multi-threaded index), and a warmed cache sustains ~32 queries per second versus under 3 for flat indexing. At a 500K-document configuration, visiting 5-10% of clusters recovers 0.83-0.92 of the exhaustive result score. Billion-scale recall and a direct comparison against document-reordered BlockMax-WAND remain open.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) spans lexical and dense retrieval, graph-based indexing, and agentic search, but these paradigms are usually evaluated on different benchmarks at one corpus size, leaving their accuracy-cost scaling unclear. To bridge this gap, we present a controlled study that varies corpus size along 28 strictly nested tiers spanning roughly 450-fold, while holding questions and a fixed bedrock of relevant and adversarial documents unchanged. Under one reader model and one judging protocol, we measure official accuracy, construction and query tokens, and latency. The results reveal a scale-dependent crossover rather than an unconditional winner. File-System Agent leads at the smallest shared tiers, but its sequential exploration costs 39 times more query tokens at the bedrock and becomes less effective as the search space grows. Around 10 million corpus tokens, BM25 overtakes it and leads at every larger shared tier, with a margin approaching 20 points at full scale. BM25 also anchors the low-cost end of the Pareto frontier without LLM-based construction. Dense retrieval remains efficient but less accurate, whereas graph-based RAG encounters construction walls before deployment scale and its scalable variants remain below BM25 at shared tiers. Overall, corpus growth increasingly favors global candidate ranking: lexical retrieval is the strongest scalable default, while agentic reasoning works best after ranked discovery rather than in place of it.

As large language model agents gain access to increasingly large skill libraries, retrieving the right skill becomes critical to reliable capability selection and execution. Existing retrievers often treat skill contents as ordinary documents, overlooking their highly regular structure: shared descriptive patterns recur across many skills while providing little evidence for distinguishing the required capability. We show that this shared descriptive background is reflected in dense relevance scores, induces a pronounced energy gap between queries and skill documents, and obscures discriminative signals, especially for structurally similar hard negatives. Based on this observation, we propose SkillSight, a training-free retrieval framework that calibrates shared background in both semantic and lexical spaces. Semantic Background Calibration estimates a background subspace from generic tokens identified by IDF, reducing similarity induced by shared descriptive patterns, while Lexical Evidence Calibration downweights shared background tokens to recover discriminative token-level evidence. Experiments on SRA-Bench and SkillBench-Supp demonstrate consistent improvements across retrieval metrics, with SkillSight improving Recall@10 by up to 20.21 percentage points over the original dense retriever. It is up to 1,248 times faster than the Dense + Reranker baseline. In end-to-end evaluation, SkillSight achieves the best overall performance across three agent models and outperforms LLM Selection by up to 4.97 percentage points. These results identify shared descriptive background as a source of ranking interference in skill retrieval and demonstrate that calibrating it enables accurate and efficient skill selection without additional training. Our code can be found at https://github.com/xiaojinying/SkillSight

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.

Retrieving the few past turns that answer a new query across long multi-session histories is the retrieval bottleneck behind long-term conversational memory (LoCoMo, LongMemEval). Recent concurrent work, Nano-Memory, shows that scoring a session by the maximum query-turn similarity (late interaction, "Turn Isolation Retrieval") beats mean-pooled session embeddings. We do not claim that effect; we replicate it and ask what a training-free, CPU-only retrieval stage should add around it. We report four findings. (1) Fuse: score-level fusion of the late-interaction dense score with BM25, under a single leave-one-conversation-out weight, adds +8.8 to +17.2 points of LoCoMo Hit@1 over late interaction alone across six encoders (all p<1e-4), reaching Hit@1 0.752 / NDCG@5 0.829 (e5-large-v2), +11.2 pp over BM25. (2) An off-the-shelf web-search cross-encoder reranker over the fused top-10 hurts here, degrading Hit@1 by 6.9 pp (one reranker, one configuration). (3) A pooling-operator ablation shows top-k late interaction matches max-similarity, but a naive smooth-max (log-sum-exp) collapses for half the encoders. (4) The late-minus-early gap is large for all six encoders and tends to be larger for larger ones, while the marginal fusion gain shrinks; on LongMemEval-S, a lexical regime where BM25 saturates, the net fusion gain over BM25 is small and not significant. A per-category analysis frames the gain as a division of labor: dense late interaction helps most on multi-hop and temporal questions but trails BM25 on adversarial ones. The contribution is a controlled, reproducible account of a strong training-free retrieval recipe, not the late-interaction retriever itself (Nano-Memory's). We make no claim to a complete memory architecture; this is a retrieval-stage study.

Long-term conversational memory is a retrieval workload classical IR was not built for: the index grows during the query stream, query types shift intra-session, and the latency budget per retrieval is sub-10 ms. Lucene-class engines treat the index as static and the query as stateless, leaving the workload's structure unexploited. AgentIR treats fusion as a per-query decision along two axes: which fusion to apply (BM25, Dense, RRF, or agent-aware RRF), and whether the ~52 ms dense channel is worth running at all. The second axis is a confidence-triggered cascade router that decides from the BM25 top-k margin alone and re-tunes across workloads without retraining. On LongMemEval (n=500), where the dense channel does add information, the cascade skips 63% of queries at parity LLM-judged accuracy (2.67x faster under two judges, paired bootstrap p>=0.88); per-qtype thresholds extend this to 5.76x under 5-fold cross-validation. On LoCoMo (n=1,982), where BM25 alone is already the strongest single system, the same trigger auto-tunes to a 100% skip rate (132x faster, +0.089 Hit@5). Capacity on a shared 8-core VM rises from ~154 to ~1,400 concurrent agents (9x). Underneath the cascade, a time-partitioned index does O(log 1/epsilon) work independent of corpus size: 1234x corpus growth costs only 3.6x latency, ending in 1769x over sequential at sub-100 us p50 on 5M records. At parity quality with Lucene on 9 BEIR datasets up to 8.8M docs, the substrate runs 10x geo-mean over Pyserini 8T and 11x over PISA-1T BlockMax-WAND; an A100 reaches 1.8-39x over Pyserini 8T; chunked index build sustains 56.8K docs/sec on MS MARCO. Three subtle BM25/GPU correctness pitfalls that silently regress nDCG@10 by 6-8x are documented and fixed; post-fix CPU and GPU agree within 0.0002 nDCG@10 on all eight datasets that fit a single A100.

Recent advances in Large Language Model (LLM) agents have enabled complex agentic workflows where models autonomously retrieve information, call tools, and reason over large corpora to complete tasks on behalf of users. Despite the growing adoption of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in agentic search systems, existing literature lacks a systematic comparison of how retrieval strategy choice interacts with agent architecture and tool-calling paradigm. Important practical dimensions, including how tool outputs are presented to the model and how performance changes when searches must cope with more irrelevant surrounding text, remain under-explored in agent loops. This paper reports an empirical study organized into two experiments. Experiment 1 compares grep and vector retrieval on a 116-question sample from LongMemEval, using a custom agent harness (Chronos) and provider-native CLI harnesses (Claude Code, Codex, and Gemini CLI), for both inline tool results and file-based tool results that the model reads separately. Experiment 2 compares grep-only and vector-only retrieval while progressively mixing in additional unrelated conversation history, so that each query is embedded in more distracting material alongside the passages that matter. Across Chronos and the provider CLIs, grep generally yields higher accuracy than vector retrieval in our comparisons in experiment 1; at the same time, overall scores still depend strongly on which harness and tool-calling style is used, even when the underlying conversation data are the same.

Does a lexical retriever suffice as large language models (LLMs) become more capable in an agentic loop? This question naturally arises when building deep research systems. We revisit it by pairing BM25 with frontier LLMs that have better reasoning and tool-use abilities. To support researchers asking the same question, we introduce Pi-Serini, a search agent equipped with three tools for retrieving, browsing, and reading documents. Our results show that, on BrowseComp-Plus, a well-configured lexical retriever with sufficient retrieval depth can support effective deep research when paired with more capable LLMs. Specifically, Pi-Serini with gpt-5.5 achieves 83.1% answer accuracy and 94.7% surfaced evidence recall, outperforming released search agents that use dense retrievers. Controlled ablations further show that BM25 tuning improves answer accuracy by 18.0% and surfaced evidence recall by 11.1% over the default BM25 setting, while increasing retrieval depth further improves surfaced evidence recall by 25.3% over the shallow-retrieval setting. Source code is available at https://github.com/justram/pi-serini.

Complex information needs may involve set-compositional queries using conjunction, disjunction, and exclusion, yet it remains unclear whether current retrieval paradigms genuinely satisfy such constraints or exploit `semantic shortcuts'. We conduct a reproducibility study to benchmark major retrieval families and reasoning-targeted methods on QUEST and QUEST+Variants, and introduce LIMIT+, a controlled benchmark where relevance depends on arbitrary attribute predicates and constraint satisfaction, and less on pretrained knowledge. Our findings show that (i) on QUEST, the best neural retrievers achieve an effectiveness that is more than double what can be achieved with BM25 (Recall@100 ${>}$0.41 vs.\ 0.20), but reasoning-targeted methods like ReasonIR and Search-R1 do not outperform general-purpose retrievers uniformly; (ii) on LIMIT+, gains fail to transfer, where the strongest QUEST method collapses from Recall@100${\approx}$0.42 to below 0.02, while classic lexical retrieval gains to ${\sim}$0.96. Lastly, (iii) stratifying by compositional depth reveals a consistent degradation across all methods, where algebraic sparse and lexical methods show more stable performance while dense approaches collapse. We release code and LIMIT+ data generation scripts to support future reproducibility and controlled evaluation.