Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Enhancing Q&A Text Retrieval with Ranking Models: Benchmarking, fine-tuning and deploying Rerankers for RAG

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.07691 v1 pith:Z6WF2NUW submitted 2024-09-12 cs.IR cs.CLcs.LG

Enhancing Q&A Text Retrieval with Ranking Models: Benchmarking, fine-tuning and deploying Rerankers for RAG

classification cs.IR cs.CLcs.LG
keywords rankingmodelsaccuracyretrievaltextsystemsapplicationsbenchmarks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Ranking models play a crucial role in enhancing overall accuracy of text retrieval systems. These multi-stage systems typically utilize either dense embedding models or sparse lexical indices to retrieve relevant passages based on a given query, followed by ranking models that refine the ordering of the candidate passages by its relevance to the query. This paper benchmarks various publicly available ranking models and examines their impact on ranking accuracy. We focus on text retrieval for question-answering tasks, a common use case for Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems. Our evaluation benchmarks include models some of which are commercially viable for industrial applications. We introduce a state-of-the-art ranking model, NV-RerankQA-Mistral-4B-v3, which achieves a significant accuracy increase of ~14% compared to pipelines with other rerankers. We also provide an ablation study comparing the fine-tuning of ranking models with different sizes, losses and self-attention mechanisms. Finally, we discuss challenges of text retrieval pipelines with ranking models in real-world industry applications, in particular the trade-offs among model size, ranking accuracy and system requirements like indexing and serving latency / throughput.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evaluating Multi-Hop Reasoning in RAG Systems: A Comparison of LLM-Based Retriever Evaluation Strategies

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CARE, a context-aware LLM judge, outperforms standard methods when evaluating multi-hop retrieval quality in RAG systems.

  2. Understand and Accelerate Memory Processing Pipeline for Large Language Model Inference

    cs.DC 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Unifying LLM memory optimizations into a Prepare-Compute-Retrieve-Apply pipeline and accelerating it on GPU-FPGA hardware yields up to 2.2x faster inference and 4.7x less energy than GPU-only baselines.

  3. Understand and Accelerate Memory Processing Pipeline for Large Language Model Inference

    cs.DC 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Unifying LLM long-context optimizations into a four-step memory pipeline and offloading sparse/irregular stages to FPGA yields up to 2.2× speedup and 4.7× energy savings versus GPU-only.

  4. A Reproducibility Study of Metacognitive Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    MetaRAG is only partially reproducible with lower absolute scores than originally reported, gains substantially from reranking, and shows greater robustness than SIM-RAG under extended retrieval features.