The results support a two-retriever lexical-transformer architecture as a robust tested default across the evaluated Dutch tasks and show that standalone benchmark performance is insufficient to establish marginal value in hybrid retrieval.
Abstract
Embedding benchmarks measure standalone model quality, but they do not establish whether a low-cost retriever contributes complementary ranking information once lexical and transformer-based retrieval are already combined. We present a controlled evaluation of this question across Dutch retrieval tasks from the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark for Dutch (MTEB-NL). Weighted reciprocal rank fusion (RRF) combines Best Matching 25 (BM25), Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B (Qwen), and two multilingual static embedding models. Five datasets comprising 14,500 queries and 786,573 documents are scored exhaustively, and fusion weights are searched on a simplex in increments of 0.1. Ten-fold query-level cross-validation selects weights on nine folds and evaluates them on the held-out fold; paired bootstrap confidence intervals and sign-randomisation tests quantify the resulting differences. Fusion improves over the training-selected individual retriever by 0.061 mean reciprocal rank (MRR) on Dutch News, 0.029 on VABB, 0.004 on WebFAQ NL, and 0.025 on Wikipedia NL, while matching BM25 on Open Tender. All four positive differences remain distinguishable from zero after Holm correction. No unrestricted fold assigns positive weight to either static retriever: all 50 selections lie on the BM25-Qwen edge, and forcing a static contribution reduces effectiveness. Leave-one-dataset-out selection chooses equal BM25-Qwen weighting in every iteration and outperforms the cross-domain-selected individual retriever on every held-out task. The results support a two-retriever lexical-transformer architecture as a robust tested default across the evaluated Dutch tasks and show that standalone benchmark performance is insufficient to establish marginal value in hybrid retrieval.
A query-level analysis shows that BM25 excels at named-entity queries, while dense and hybrid methods improve natural-language, noisy, cross-lingual, and concept queries, and overall CUP enables real-world evaluation of Greek retrieval across lexical, semantic, noisy, and cross-lingual queries.
Katerina Papantoniou, P. Papadakos, T. Patkos et al.· 0 citations
The Adaptive Multi-Stage Vector Retrieval (AMSVR) framework is proposed, prioritising weighted, drift-resistant composition over uniform fusion, and offers tailored configurations: AMSVR-Scientific (dense + tuned hybrid) peaks at NDCG@10 = 0.7570 on SciFact, while AMSVR-Full (seven stages) targets broader, noisier corpora where Recall@100 matters most.
Samsudeen Alabi Bankole, Yakub Kayode Saheed· NLP & Big Data· 0 citations
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, S. Sundararaman· 0 citations
A novel benchmark framework for linguistic QA retrieval, empirical evidence supporting monolingual IR-specialised models, and insights into retrieval robustness under paraphrastic variation are included, enabling improved QA systems for specialised and low-resource environments.
Pedro Moura, Inês Gama, F. Batista et al.· 0 citations
MTEB-BR is introduced, a benchmark of 22 native Brazilian-Portuguese tasks across seven categories (classification, multilabel classification, pair classification, semantic textual similarity, clustering, retrieval, and reranking), admitting only data created or found in Portuguese and excluding translations by construction.
We introduce SciRet, a compute-aware empirical study of retrieval-augmented generation for scientific question answering over CORD-19. Rather than proposing a new model, we evaluate a fixed scientific RAG pipeline across three corpus scales: 1,034 chunks (1K papers), 5,160 chunks (5K papers), and 15,480 chunks (15K papers). The pipeline combines sentence-window chunking, BM25, BGE-M3 dense retrieval, reciprocal rank fusion, optional cross-encoder reranking, and grounded answer generation. Across these settings, hybrid retrieval is more robust than either sparse-only or dense-only retrieval in our setting, reaching Recall@10 of 1.000 at 1K and 15K. In contrast, an MS MARCO-trained cross-encoder reranker reduces precision on the scientific corpus, suggesting that domain mismatch can outweigh the benefits of stronger query-passage interaction. Generation faithfulness measured with RAGAS increases with corpus scale in our setup. Retrieval evaluation uses pseudo-relevance labels derived from the hybrid system, so we treat the results as controlled comparative evidence rather than a benchmark claim. We release code, indexes, and evaluation outputs to support replication and follow-up studies.
Kaysarul Anas Apurba, Mahade Hasan, Rofiqul Alam Shehab et al.· 0 citations
