MultiContrievers: Analysis of Dense Retrieval Representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Dense retrievers compress source documents into (possibly lossy) vector representations, yet there is little analysis of what information is lost versus preserved, and how it affects downstream tasks. We conduct the first analysis of the information captured by dense retrievers compared to the language models they are based on (e.g., BERT versus Contriever). We use 25 MultiBert checkpoints as randomized initialisations to train MultiContrievers, a set of 25 contriever models. We test whether specific pieces of information -- such as gender and occupation -- can be extracted from contriever vectors of wikipedia-like documents. We measure this extractability via information theoretic probing. We then examine the relationship of extractability to performance and gender bias, as well as the sensitivity of these results to many random initialisations and data shuffles. We find that (1) contriever models have significantly increased extractability, but extractability usually correlates poorly with benchmark performance 2) gender bias is present, but is not caused by the contriever representations 3) there is high sensitivity to both random initialisation and to data shuffle, suggesting that future retrieval research should test across a wider spread of both.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Feb 2024.
Builds on
27 of 40 references.
References · 27
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,779
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
- 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
- 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,362
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2021BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Modelscited by 1,225
- 2021Unsupervised Dense Information Retrieval with Contrastive Learningcited by 1,203
- 2020Approximate Nearest Neighbor Negative Contrastive Learning for Dense Text Retrievalcited by 846
- 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
- 2021Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversationcited by 691
15 more
- 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
- 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 442
- 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 346
- 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 276
- 2021Efficiently Teaching an Effective Dense Retriever with Balanced Topic Aware Samplingcited by 238
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing with Minimum Description Lengthcited by 230
- 2013A Theoretical Analysis of NDCG Type Ranking Measurescited by 119
- 2021Can contrastive learning avoid shortcut solutions?cited by 114
- 2019BERTs of a feather do not generalize together: Large variability in generalization across models with similar test set performancecited by 89
- 2021The MultiBERTs: BERT Reproductions for Robustness Analysiscited by 89
- 2020Multi-Dimensional Gender Bias Classificationcited by 80
- 2021Men Are Elected, Women Are Married: Events Gender Bias on Wikipediacited by 30
- 2020Do Neural Ranking Models Intensify Gender Bias?cited by 28
- 2023Shielded Representations: Protecting Sensitive Attributes Through Iterative Gradient-Based Projectioncited by 25
- 2022Analyzing Gender Representation in Multilingual Modelscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.