pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26483 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 💻 cs.IR

Recognition: unknown

Efficient Listwise Reranking with Compressed Document Representations

Herv\'e D\'ejean , St\'ephane Clinchant
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 10:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR
keywords listwise rerankingdocument compressionLLM rerankerscompressed embeddingsefficient retrievaldistillation traininginformation retrieval
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compressing documents into fixed-size multi-token embeddings lets an 8B-parameter listwise reranker run 3x-18x faster than smaller models while matching or exceeding their effectiveness.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents RRK, which compresses full documents into multi-token fixed-size embedding representations and applies listwise reranking directly to those compact inputs. Simple distillation training transfers knowledge from full-text models to this compressed format. A reader would care because LLM reranking is usually too slow for production search pipelines, especially when documents are long. The authors demonstrate that the 8B model delivers substantial speedups over 0.6-4B baselines with no loss in ranking quality, and the advantage widens on long-document tasks.

Core claim

RRK compresses each document into a fixed-size sequence of embedding tokens and performs listwise reranking over these representations rather than full text. Trained by distillation, the resulting 8B-parameter model achieves 3x-18x higher throughput than smaller rerankers while matching or outperforming them in effectiveness; the efficiency margin grows further on long-document benchmarks.

What carries the argument

Multi-token fixed-size compressed document embeddings that serve as input for listwise reranking instead of raw document text.

If this is right

  • Efficiency gains from compression grow with document length, making the method especially useful for long-document collections.
  • Larger-parameter models can become faster than smaller ones when both use the same compressed input format.
  • Distillation training suffices to adapt listwise rerankers to compressed representations without custom architectures.
  • Practical high-quality reranking becomes feasible in latency-sensitive retrieval systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same compression approach could be tested on other LLM-based retrieval stages such as query expansion or answer generation.
  • Varying the number of embedding tokens per document might yield an accuracy-speed trade-off curve that the current fixed-size design does not explore.
  • If the compression preserves ranking signals reliably, it could reduce the need for expensive full-context attention in other document-centric tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The fixed-size multi-token compressed embeddings retain enough semantic information from the original documents to support accurate listwise reranking decisions.

What would settle it

A standard reranking benchmark where the compressed-input 8B model underperforms full-text listwise rerankers of comparable or smaller size by a large margin would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26483 by Herv\'e D\'ejean, St\'ephane Clinchant.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Efficiency/Effectiveness diagram for the BeIR view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Efficiency/Effectiveness diagram for the view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Efficiency/effectiveness comparison of RRK, view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: RRK Architecture Schema B. Full comparison between RRK, PE-Rank and E2RANK models Model TREC-Covid NFCorpus Touché DBPedia SciFact Avg E2 RANK (BGE) 0.6B 79.2 38.6 41.9 42.0 73.4 55.0 4B 83.3 39.2 43.2 43.0 77.2 57.2 8B 84.1 39.1 42.2 43.4 77.5 57.2 E2 RANK (MS) 0.6B 80.0 37.6 36.6 41.9 73.2 53.9 4B 84.9 39.3 35.4 43.6 77.7 56.2 8B 85.4 39.6 36.6 44.3 78.2 56.8 PE-RANK (MS) 77.5 36.4 33.1 40.1 69.4 51.3 RR… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Reranking, the process of refining the output from a first-stage retriever, is often considered computationally expensive, especially when using Large Language Models (LLMs). A common approach to mitigate this cost involves utilizing smaller LLMs or controlling input length. Inspired by recent advances in document compression for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), we introduce RRK, an efficient and effective listwise reranker compressing documents into multi-token fixed-size embedding representations. Our simple training via distillation shows that this combination of rich compressed representations and listwise reranking yields a highly efficient and effective system. In particular, our 8B-parameter model runs 3x-18x faster than smaller rerankers (0.6-4B parameters) while matching or outperforming them in effectiveness. The efficiency gains are even more striking on long-document benchmarks, where RRK widens its advantage further.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces RRK, a listwise reranker that compresses full documents into multi-token fixed-size embeddings via a simple distillation training procedure from full-text teachers. It claims that the resulting 8B-parameter model achieves 3x-18x speedups over 0.6-4B rerankers while matching or exceeding their effectiveness, with the efficiency advantage widening on long-document benchmarks.

Significance. If the compressed representations preserve enough semantic content for reliable listwise comparisons, the approach would provide a practical route to scaling reranker size without proportional latency costs, especially valuable for long-document IR. The distillation-based training and explicit focus on long-document gains are positive elements that could be reproducible if code and exact training details are released.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central speed and effectiveness claims (3x-18x faster, matching/outperforming smaller models) are stated without any accompanying metrics, latency numbers, effectiveness scores, datasets, or baseline references, so the load-bearing empirical support for the claim cannot be evaluated from the provided text.
  2. [Method] Method section (compression procedure): the multi-token fixed-size embedding construction is presented as retaining sufficient information for listwise reranking, yet no ablation, information-retention metric, or direct comparison to full-text input is supplied to test the weakest assumption that query-relevant details survive compression; without this, the efficiency advantage cannot be shown to be usable.
  3. [Experiments] Experiments section: the reported gains on long-document benchmarks are asserted to widen the advantage, but no table or figure quantifies the exact latency/effectiveness trade-off or controls for input-length effects, leaving the long-document claim unsupported.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Method] Notation for the compressed representation (e.g., how the fixed token count is chosen and encoded) should be defined explicitly with an equation or diagram to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight opportunities to strengthen the clarity and empirical support in the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central speed and effectiveness claims (3x-18x faster, matching/outperforming smaller models) are stated without any accompanying metrics, latency numbers, effectiveness scores, datasets, or baseline references, so the load-bearing empirical support for the claim cannot be evaluated from the provided text.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract presents high-level claims without specific supporting numbers. The detailed metrics, including exact speedups, effectiveness scores (e.g., nDCG), datasets, and baseline comparisons, appear in the Experiments section. We will revise the abstract to incorporate a small number of key quantitative highlights to improve immediate evaluability while remaining within length limits. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method section (compression procedure): the multi-token fixed-size embedding construction is presented as retaining sufficient information for listwise reranking, yet no ablation, information-retention metric, or direct comparison to full-text input is supplied to test the weakest assumption that query-relevant details survive compression; without this, the efficiency advantage cannot be shown to be usable.

    Authors: The end-to-end effectiveness results provide indirect validation that the compressed representations preserve sufficient information for listwise reranking. We acknowledge that explicit ablations and retention metrics would offer stronger direct evidence. In the revision we will add an ablation study comparing multi-token embeddings to full-text inputs and alternative compression strategies, including relevant information-retention metrics. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experiments] Experiments section: the reported gains on long-document benchmarks are asserted to widen the advantage, but no table or figure quantifies the exact latency/effectiveness trade-off or controls for input-length effects, leaving the long-document claim unsupported.

    Authors: The Experiments section reports results on long-document benchmarks with associated latency and effectiveness numbers. To make the trade-off and input-length controls more explicit, we will add a dedicated table or figure in the revision that isolates these factors and includes comparisons against length-controlled full-text baselines. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical distillation and benchmark evaluation are self-contained

full rationale

The paper trains RRK via distillation into fixed-size multi-token compressed embeddings and reports measured speed/effectiveness on benchmarks. No derivation chain, equation, or claim reduces by construction to its own inputs; the central efficiency claim is an observed outcome of the trained model rather than a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. No self-citation load-bearing steps or uniqueness theorems are invoked. The information-preservation assumption is testable via the reported evaluations and does not create circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the method is framed as an engineering combination of compression and distillation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5449 in / 1034 out tokens · 61949 ms · 2026-05-07T10:40:16.313763+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Alina Sto- ica, Saurabh Tiwary, and Tong Wang. 2018. Ms marco: Ahumangeneratedmachinereadingcom- prehension dataset.Preprint, arXiv:1611.09268. 3

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Chris Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Greg Hullender. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. InProceedingsofthe22ndinternational conferenceon Machine learning, pages 89–96. 3

    2005

  3. [3]

    Cesare Campagnano, Antonio Mallia, Jack Pertschuk, and Fabrizio Silvestri. 2025. E2rank: Efficient and effective layer-wise reranking. In Advances in Information Retrieval, pages 417– 426, Cham. Springer Nature Switzerland. 3, 4, 6

    2025

  4. [4]

    Hongliu Cao. 2024. Recent advances in text embedding: A comprehensive review of top- performing methods on the mteb benchmark. Preprint, arXiv:2406.01607. 3

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Xin Cheng, Xun Wang, Xingxing Zhang, Tao Ge, Si-Qing Chen, Furu Wei, Huishuai Zhang, and Dongyan Zhao. 2024. xrag: Extreme context com- pression for retrieval-augmented generation with 8 Efficient Listwise Reranking with Compressed Document Representations one token. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13792. 2, 7, 8

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Alexis Chevalier, Alexander Wettig, Anirudh Ajith, and Danqi Chen. 2023. Adapting language models to compress contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14788. 2

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, and Daniel Campos. 2021. Overview of the trec 2020 deep learning track.Preprint, arXiv:2102.07662. 4

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    CoRRabs/2003.07820(2020), https://arxiv.org/ abs/2003.07820

    Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, Daniel Campos, and Ellen M. Voorhees. 2020. Overview of the trec 2019 deep learning track. Preprint, arXiv:2003.07820. 4

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Hervé Déjean, Stéphane Clinchant, and Thibault Formal. 2024. A thorough comparison of cross- encoders and llms for reranking splade.Preprint, arXiv:2403.10407. 1, 4

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Revanth Gangi Reddy, JaeHyeok Doo, Yifei Xu, Md Arafat Sultan, Deevya Swain, Avirup Sil, and Heng Ji. 2024. FIRST: Faster improved list- wise reranking with single token decoding. In Proceedingsofthe2024ConferenceonEmpirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8642–8652, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. 1, 2, 3

    2024

  11. [11]

    Luyu Gao, Zhuyun Dai, and Jamie Callan

  12. [12]

    arXiv preprint

    Rethink Training of BERT Rerankers in Multi-Stage Retrieval Pipeline. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2101.08751 [cs]. 1

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    Tao Ge, Jing Hu, Xun Wang, Si-Qing Chen, and Furu Wei. 2023. In-context autoencoder for con- textcompressioninalargelanguagemodel. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06945. 1, 2

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Khattab and Matei A

    O. Khattab and Matei A. Zaharia. 2020. Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contex- tualized late interaction over bert.Proceedings ofthe 43rd InternationalACMSIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 8

    2020

  15. [15]

    Carlos Lassance, Hervé Déjean, Thibault Formal, and Stéphane Clinchant. 2024. Splade-v3: New baselines for splade.Preprint, arXiv:2403.06789. 3

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Qi Liu, Bo Wang, Nan Wang, and Jiaxin Mao

  17. [17]

    In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pages 4274–4283

    Leveraging passage embeddings for ef- ficient listwise reranking with large language models. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pages 4274–4283. 1, 2, 7, 8

    2025

  18. [18]

    Qi Liu, Yanzhao Zhang, Mingxin Li, Dingkun Long, Pengjun Xie, and Jiaxin Mao. 2026. $\text{E}^2\text{Rank}$: Your text embedding can also be an effective and efficient listwise reranker. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

    2026

  19. [19]

    Zheng Liu, Chaofan Li, Shitao Xiao, Chaozhuo Li, Defu Lian, and Yingxia Shao. 2025. Ma- tryoshka re-ranker: A flexible re-ranking architec- ture with configurable depth and width.Preprint, arXiv:2501.16302. 2

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Maxime Louis, Hervé Déjean, and Stéphane Clin- chant. 2025. Pisco: Pretty simple compression for retrieval-augmented generation. Preprint, arXiv:2501.16075. 1, 2, 3

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Xueguang Ma, Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, and Jimmy Lin. 2023. Fine-tuning llama for multi- stage text retrieval.Preprint, arXiv:2310.08319. 5

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Isabelle Mohr, Markus Krimmel, Saba Sturua, Mohammad Kalim Akram, Andreas Koukounas, Michael Günther, Georgios Mastrapas, Vinit Ravis- hankar, Joan Fontanals Martínez, Feng Wang, and 1 others. 2024. Multi-task contrastive learning for 8192-token bilingual text embeddings.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17016. 7

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2020. Passage re-ranking with bert. Preprint, arXiv:1901.04085. 1

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Hippolyte Pilchen, Edouard Grave, and Patrick Pérez. 2025. Arc-encoder: learning compressed text representations for large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2510.20535. 1, 2

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Ronak Pradeep, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, and Jimmy Lin. 2023. RankZephyr: Effective and Robust Zero-Shot Listwise Reranking is a Breeze! arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2312.02724 [cs]. 2

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Honglei Zhuang, Junru Wu, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Donald Metzler, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bendersky. 2023. Large Language Mod- els are Effective Text Rankers with Pairwise Rank- ing Prompting.arXivpreprint. ArXiv:2306.17563 [cs]. 2

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    David Rau, Shuai Wang, Hervé Déjean, and Stéphane Clinchant. 2024. Context embeddings for efficient answer generation in rag.Preprint, arXiv:2407.09252. 1

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Stephen E Robertson, Steve Walker, MM Beaulieu, Mike Gatford, and Alison Payne. 1996. Okapi at trec-4. Nist Special PublicationSp, pages 73–96. 7

    1996

  29. [29]

    Hongjin Su, Howard Yen, Mengzhou Xia, Weijia Shi, Niklas Muennighoff, Han-yu Wang, Haisu Liu, Quan Shi, Zachary S Siegel, Michael Tang, Ruoxi Sun, Jinsung Yoon, Sercan O Arik, Danqi Chen, and Tao Yu. 2024. Bright: A realistic and 9 Efficient Listwise Reranking with Compressed Document Representations challenging benchmark for reasoning-intensive retrieval. 8

    2024

  30. [30]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Pengjie Ren, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agent. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2304.09542 [cs]. 2

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Ruckl’e, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. Beir: A heterogenous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models.ArXiv, abs/2104.08663. 4

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Feng Wang, Yuqing Li, and Han Xiao. 2025. jina-reranker-v3: Last but not late interaction for listwise document reranking. Preprint, arXiv:2509.25085. 1, 2, 3

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2024. Improving text embeddings with large language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 11897–11916. 7

    2024

  34. [34]

    Benjamin Warner, Antoine Chaffin, Benjamin Clavié, Orion Weller, Oskar Hallström, Said Taghadouini, Alexis Gallagher, Raja Biswas, Faisal Ladhak, Tom Aarsen, Nathan Cooper, Griffin Adams, Jeremy Howard, and Iacopo Poli. 2024. Smarter, better, faster, longer: A modern bidi- rectional encoder for fast, memory efficient, and long context finetuning and infer...

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Yanzhao Zhang, Mingxin Li, Dingkun Long, Xin Zhang, Huan Lin, Baosong Yang, Pengjun Xie, An Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Junyang Lin, Fei Huang, and Jingren Zhou. 2025. Qwen3 em- bedding: Advancing text embedding and rerank- ing through foundation models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176. 3, 4

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Yutao Zhu, Huaying Yuan, Shuting Wang, Jiong- nan Liu, Wenhan Liu, Chenlong Deng, Haonan Chen, ZhengLiu, ZhichengDou, andJi-RongWen

  37. [37]

    Large language models for information retrieval: A survey

    Large language models for information re- trieval: A survey. Preprint, arXiv:2308.07107. 1

    work page arXiv

  38. [38]

    Shengyao Zhuang, Honglei Zhuang, Bevan Koop- man, and Guido Zuccon. 2023. A Setwise Ap- proach for Effective and Highly Efficient Zero- shot Ranking with Large Language Models.arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2310.09497 [cs]. 1, 2 10 Efficient Listwise Reranking with Compressed Document Representations A. RRK Architecture Figure 4: RRK Architecture Schema B. Full co...

    work page arXiv 2023