Scaling Sparse and Dense Retrieval in Decoder-Only LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Scaling large language models (LLMs) has shown great potential for improving retrieval model performance; however, previous studies have mainly focused on dense retrieval trained with contrastive loss (CL), neglecting the scaling behavior of other retrieval paradigms and optimization techniques, such as sparse retrieval and knowledge distillation (KD). In this work, we conduct a systematic comparative study on how different retrieval paradigms (sparse vs. dense) and fine-tuning objectives (CL vs. KD vs. their combination) affect retrieval performance across different model scales. Using MSMARCO passages as the training dataset, decoder-only LLMs (Llama-3 series: 1B, 3B, 8B), and a fixed compute budget, we evaluate various training configurations on both in-domain (MSMARCO, TREC DL) and out-of-domain (BEIR) benchmarks. Our key findings reveal that: (1) Scaling behaviors emerge clearly only with CL, where larger models achieve significant performance gains, whereas KD-trained models show minimal improvement, performing similarly across the 1B, 3B, and 8B scales. (2) Sparse retrieval models consistently outperform dense retrieval across both in-domain (MSMARCO, TREC DL) and out-of-domain (BEIR) benchmarks, and they demonstrate greater robustness to imperfect supervised signals. (3) We successfully scale sparse retrieval models with the combination of CL and KD losses at 8B scale, achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) results in all evaluation sets.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 Feb 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 7.
12 papers.
- 2025Benchmarking Information Retrieval Models on Complex Retrieval Taskscited by 6
- 2026LACONIC: Dense-Level Effectiveness for Scalable Sparse Retrieval via a Two-Phase Training Curriculumcited by 5
- 2026Learning Retrieval Models with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 5
- 2025Think Before You Retrieve: Learning Test-Time Adaptive Search with Small Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025An Alternative to FLOPS Regularization to Effectively Productionize SPLADE-Doccited by 3
- 2025CIIR@LiveRAG 2025: Optimizing Multi-Agent Retrieval Augmented Generation through Self-Trainingcited by 2
- 2025Retrieval Capabilities of Large Language Models Scale with Pretraining FLOPscited by 2
- 2026Scaling Laws for Embedding Dimension in Information Retrievalcited by 2
- 2026On the Challenges and Opportunities of Learned Sparse Retrieval for Codecited by 2
- 2026To Case or Not to Case: An Empirical Study in Learned Sparse Retrievalcited by 0
- 2026The Pre-Training Study of Expanded-SPLADE Models on Web Document Titlescited by 0
- 2026uva-irlab-conv at SemEval-2026 Task 8: Multi-Turn RAG with Learned Sparse Retrieval and Listwise Rerankingcited by 0
- 2026uva-irlab-conv at SemEval-2026 Task 8: Multi-Turn RAG with Learned Sparse Retrieval and Listwise Reranking10 Jun 2026
- 2026The Pre-Training Study of Expanded-SPLADE Models on Web Document Titles2 May 2026
- 2026On the Challenges and Opportunities of Learned Sparse Retrieval for Code23 Mar 2026
- 2026Learning Retrieval Models with Sparse Autoencoders27 Feb 2026
- 2026Scaling Laws for Embedding Dimension in Information Retrieval4 Feb 2026
- 2026To Case or Not to Case: An Empirical Study in Learned Sparse Retrieval24 Jan 2026
- 2026LACONIC: Dense-Level Effectiveness for Scalable Sparse Retrieval via a Two-Phase Training Curriculum4 Jan 2026
- 2025Think Before You Retrieve: Learning Test-Time Adaptive Search with Small Language Models10 Nov 2025
- 2025Benchmarking Information Retrieval Models on Complex Retrieval Tasks8 Sep 2025
- 2025Retrieval Capabilities of Large Language Models Scale with Pretraining FLOPs24 Aug 2025
- 2025CIIR@LiveRAG 2025: Optimizing Multi-Agent Retrieval Augmented Generation through Self-Training12 Jun 2025
- 2025An Alternative to FLOPS Regularization to Effectively Productionize SPLADE-Doc21 May 2025