0

0

Self-Retrieval: End-to-End Information Retrieval with One Large Language Model

    Published 11/5/2024 by Qiaoyu Tang, Jiawei Chen, Zhuoqun Li, Bowen Yu, Yaojie Lu, Cheng Fu, Haiyang Yu, Hongyu Lin, Fei Huang, Ben He and 3 others

    Overview

    • This paper proposes a novel information retrieval system that uses a single large language model (LLM) for both query understanding and document retrieval.
    • The key idea is to leverage the powerful language understanding capabilities of LLMs to perform "self-retrieval" - allowing the LLM to understand the query, retrieve relevant documents, and summarize the results, all within a single model.
    • The authors explore different task formats for enabling this self-retrieval capability and evaluate their approach on several benchmark datasets.

    Framework for self-retrieval with three components.

    1/2

    Framework for self-retrieval with three components.

    Original caption: Figure 1: The Self-Retrieval framework consists of three key components: (1) corpus indexing through self-supervised learning, (2) passage generation via constrained decoding, (3) passage ranking using self-assessment scoring.

    Passage retrieval results on NQ and TriviaQA datasets, showing statistically significant improvements over prior baselines.

    1/2

    Model Parameters NQ H@1 NQ H@5 NQ M@5 TriviaQA H@1 TriviaQA H@5 TriviaQA M@5
    Sparse Retrieval
    BM25 [37] - 14.54 32.71 21.13 20.09 42.73 28.35
    Dense Retrieval
    DPR [19] 110M 40.41 61.79 48.80 35.57 57.39 43.93
    DPR-FT [19] 110M 42.21 60.45 49.33 36.58 53.05 42.91
    BGE [50] 335M 36.30 66.95 48.05 46.97 70.14 55.95
    BGE-FT [50] 335M 53.42 80.15 63.99 52.70 75.22 61.65
    BGE-FT + BGE-Reranker-FT 770M 52.15 76.15 61.37 44.87 67.39 53.39
    GTR-XL [32] 1.24B 37.64 66.84 48.94 35.97 63.75 46.67
    GTR-XL + BGE-Reranker-FT 1.57B 57.50 78.92 66.06 58.56 77.65 66.22
    GTR-XXL [32] 4.86B 39.21 69.72 50.88 35.97 64.15 46.83
    text-embedding-ada-002 - 34.28 62.28 44.64 35.09 62.00 45.15
    GritLM [29] 7.24B 44.67 76.00 57.03 39.91 69.34 51.14
    GritLM + BGE-Reranker-FT 7.57B 57.57 81.35 66.98 58.60 80.54 67.21
    Generative retrieval
    DSI-XL [42] 2.85B 43.03 60.26 49.47 29.64 46.74 36.12
    DSI-XXL [42] 11.3B 43.81 60.45 50.20 30.55 46.67 36.56
    SEAL [5] 406M 36.79 61.35 45.88 36.88 61.66 46.29
    DSI-QG [59] 2.85B 34.88 56.60 43.33 29.15 45.53 35.20
    NCI + BGE-Reranker-FT 1.07B 50.86 70.27 58.53 28.42 42.18 33.62
    Self-Retrieval (StableLM) 2.8B 62.16* 79.28 69.45* 58.69* 78.39* 66.72*
    Self-Retrieval (Llama 2) 6.74B 63.44* 79.29 70.00* 59.94* 81.06* 68.74*

    Original caption: Table 1: The experimental results of passage retrieval on NQ and TriviaQA test set. * indicates statistically significant improvements (p < 0.01) over state-of-the-art retrieval baselines.

    Plain English Explanation

    The researchers have developed a new way to build an information retrieval system using just a single large language model (LLM). Typically, information retrieval systems have separate components for understanding the user's query and finding relevant documents.

    However, the researchers realized that modern LLMs, like GPT-3, have become so advanced at understanding language that they can potentially handle both of these tasks on their own. The key innovation is to "teach" the LLM to not only understand the query, but also go out and find the most relevant documents, and then summarize the results - all within a single model.

    The paper explores different ways of framing this "self-retrieval" task for the LLM, and evaluates the performance on standard information retrieval benchmarks. The goal is to show that a single, powerful LLM can serve as the foundation for a complete information retrieval system, without needing separate specialized components.

    Key Findings

    • The researchers developed several task formats that allow a single LLM to perform query understanding, document retrieval, and result summarization.
    • Their "self-retrieval" approach achieved competitive performance compared to traditional information retrieval systems on several benchmark datasets.
    • The self-retrieval model was able to handle a variety of query types, from simple keyword searches to more complex natural language questions.

    Technical Explanation

    The core idea behind the self-retrieval approach is to leverage the powerful language understanding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to perform information retrieval in a more end-to-end manner. Traditionally, information retrieval systems have separate components for query understanding and document retrieval, often relying on specialized techniques like term-frequency inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) or BM25.

    However, the researchers hypothesized that modern LLMs like GPT-3 have become sophisticated enough to handle both of these tasks within a single model. They explored several task formats to enable this "self-retrieval" capability:

    1. Prompting the LLM with the query: The LLM is given the query text and asked to retrieve and summarize the most relevant documents.
    2. Concatenating query and candidate documents: The LLM is given the query concatenated with each candidate document, and asked to predict a relevance score.
    3. Multi-task training: The LLM is trained on a mix of query understanding, document retrieval, and summarization tasks.

    The researchers evaluated these self-retrieval approaches on several benchmark datasets, including MS MARCO, TriviaQA, and NQ, and found that they could achieve competitive performance compared to traditional information retrieval systems. Importantly, the self-retrieval model was able to handle a variety of query types, from simple keyword searches to more complex natural language questions.

    Critical Analysis

    The self-retrieval approach proposed in this paper is an interesting and promising direction for building information retrieval systems using large language models. The key advantage is the potential for greater end-to-end integration and flexibility, without relying on separate specialized components.

    However, the paper does not deeply explore the limitations and challenges of this approach. For example, it is unclear how the self-retrieval model would scale to very large document collections, or how it would handle dynamic updates to the document corpus. Additionally, the evaluation was limited to standard benchmark datasets, and more real-world testing would be needed to assess the practical viability of the approach.

    Another potential concern is the "black box" nature of large language models - it may be difficult to understand and explain the reasoning behind the retrieval and summarization decisions made by the model. This could be an obstacle for certain applications that require more transparency.

    Overall, the self-retrieval concept is an intriguing step towards more integrated and flexible information retrieval systems. But further research is needed to fully understand the strengths, weaknesses, and practical implications of this approach.

    Conclusion

    This paper presents a novel information retrieval system that leverages a single large language model (LLM) to perform both query understanding and document retrieval in an end-to-end manner. The key innovation is the "self-retrieval" concept, where the LLM is trained to understand the query, retrieve the most relevant documents, and summarize the results - all within a single model.

    The researchers explored several task formats to enable this self-retrieval capability and demonstrated competitive performance on standard benchmark datasets. This work represents an important step towards more integrated and flexible information retrieval systems that can take advantage of the growing capabilities of large language models.

    While further research is needed to fully understand the limitations and practical implications of this approach, the self-retrieval concept opens up new possibilities for building more powerful and versatile information retrieval systems.

    Full paper

    Loading...

    Loading PDF viewer...

    Read original: arXiv:2403.00801



    This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

    Total Score

    140

    Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →