Abstract:Traditional Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) approaches generally assume that retrieval and generation occur on powerful servers removed from the end user. While this reduces local hardware constraints, it introduces significant drawbacks: privacy concerns regarding data access, recurring maintenance and storage costs, increased latency, and the necessity of an internet connection. On-device RAG addresses these challenges by executing the entire pipeline locally, making it ideal for querying sensitive personal information such as financial documents, contact details, and medical history. However, on-device deployment necessitates a delicate balance between limited memory and disk space. Specifically, the context size provided to the generative model must be restricted to manage KV cache and attention memory usage, while the size of stored embeddings must be minimized to preserve disk space. In this work, we propose a unified model that compresses the RAG context and utilizes the same representations for retrieval. This approach minimizes disk utilization compared to using separate representations, while significantly reducing the context size required for generation. With an average of 1/10 of the context, our model matches the performance of a traditional RAG reader without increasing storage requirements compared to a multi-vector retrieval model. This approach represents the first model to unify retrieval and context compression using a shared model and representation. We believe this work will inspire further consolidation of distinct models to optimize on-device performance.
Abstract:Modern information access ecosystems consist of mixtures of systems, such as retrieval systems and large language models, and increasingly rely on marketplaces to mediate access to models, tools, and data, making competition between systems inherent to deployment. In such settings, outcomes are shaped not only by benchmark quality but also by competitive pressure, including user switching, routing decisions, and operational constraints. Yet evaluation is still largely conducted on static benchmarks with accuracy-focused measures that assume systems operate in isolation. This mismatch makes it difficult to predict post-deployment success and obscures competitive effects such as early-adoption advantages and market dominance. We introduce Marketplace Evaluation, a simulation-based paradigm that evaluates information access systems as participants in a competitive marketplace. By simulating repeated interactions and evolving user and agent preferences, the framework enables longitudinal evaluation and marketplace-level metrics, such as retention and market share, that complement and can extend beyond traditional accuracy-based metrics. We formalize the framework and outline a research agenda, motivated by business and economics, around marketplace simulation, metrics, optimization, and adoption in evaluation campaigns like TREC.
Abstract:Deep research agents have emerged as LLM-based systems designed to perform multi-step information seeking and reasoning over large, open-domain sources to answer complex questions by synthesizing information from multiple information sources. Given the complexity of the task and despite various recent efforts, evaluation of deep research agents remains fundamentally challenging. This paper identifies a list of requirements and optional properties for evaluating deep research agents. We observe that existing benchmarks do not satisfy all identified requirements. Inspired by prior research on TREC Total Recall Tracks, we introduce the task of Total Recall Question Answering and develop a framework for deep research agents evaluation that satisfies the identified criteria. Our framework constructs single-answer, total recall queries with precise evaluation and relevance judgments derived from a structured knowledge base paired with a text corpus, enabling large-scale data construction. Using this framework, we build TRQA, a deep research benchmark constructed from Wikidata-Wikipedia as a real-world source and a synthetically generated e-commerce knowledge base and corpus to mitigate the effects of data contamination. We benchmark the collection with representative retriever and deep research models and establish baseline retrieval and end-to-end results for future comparative evaluation.
Abstract:Scaling laws have been observed across a wide range of tasks, such as natural language generation and dense retrieval, where performance follows predictable patterns as model size, data, and compute grow. However, these scaling laws are insufficient for understanding the scaling behavior of multi-stage retrieval systems, which typically include a reranking stage. In large-scale multi-stage retrieval systems, reranking is the final and most influential step before presenting a ranked list of items to the end user. In this work, we present the first systematic study of scaling laws for rerankers by analyzing performance across model sizes and data budgets for three popular paradigms: pointwise, pairwise, and listwise reranking. Using a detailed case study with cross-encoder rerankers, we demonstrate that performance follows a predictable power law. This regularity allows us to accurately forecast the performance of larger models for some metrics more than others using smaller-scale experiments, offering a robust methodology for saving significant computational resources. For example, we accurately estimate the NDCG of a 1B-parameter model by training and evaluating only smaller models (up to 400M parameters), in both in-domain as well as out-of-domain settings. Our experiments encompass span several loss functions, models and metrics and demonstrate that downstream metrics like NDCG, MAP (Mean Avg Precision) show reliable scaling behavior and can be forecasted accurately at scale, while highlighting the limitations of metrics like Contrastive Entropy and MRR (Mean Reciprocal Rank) which do not follow predictable scaling behavior in all instances. Our results establish scaling principles for reranking and provide actionable insights for building industrial-grade retrieval systems.
Abstract:Complex clinical decision making often fails not because a model lacks facts, but because it cannot reliably select and apply the right procedural knowledge and the right prior example at the right reasoning step. We frame clinical question answering as an agent problem with two explicit, retrievable resources: skills, reusable clinical procedures such as guidelines, protocols, and pharmacologic mechanisms; and experience, verified reasoning trajectories from previously solved cases (e.g., chain-of-thought solutions and their step-level decompositions). At test time, the agent retrieves both relevant skills and experiences from curated libraries and performs lightweight test-time adaptation to align the language model's intermediate reasoning with clinically valid logic. Concretely, we build (i) a skills library from guideline-style documents organized as executable decision rules, (ii) an experience library of exemplar clinical reasoning chains indexed by step-level transitions, and (iii) a step-aware retriever that selects the most useful skill and experience items for the current case. We then adapt the model on the retrieved items to reduce instance-step misalignment and to prevent reasoning from drifting toward unsupported shortcuts. Experiments on medical question-answering benchmarks show consistent gains over strong medical RAG baselines and prompting-only reasoning methods. Our results suggest that explicitly separating and retrieving clinical skills and experience, and then aligning the model at test time, is a practical approach to more reliable medical agents.
Abstract:Personalization in Question Answering (QA) requires answers that are both accurate and aligned with users' background, preferences, and historical context. Existing state-of-the-art methods primarily rely on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) solutions that construct personal context by retrieving relevant items from the user's profile. Existing methods use the user's query directly to retrieve personal documents, and such strategies often lead to surface-level personalization. We propose PR2 (Personalized Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning), a reinforcement learning framework that integrates reasoning and retrieval from personal context for personalization. PR2 learns adaptive retrieval-reasoning policies, determining when to retrieve, what evidence to retrieve from user profiles, and how to incorporate it into intermediate reasoning steps. By optimizing multi-turn reasoning trajectories under a personalized reward function, the framework reinforces reasoning paths that better align with user-specific preferences and contextual signals reflected by the reward model. Extensive experiments on the LaMP-QA benchmark using three LLMs show that PR2 consistently outperforms strong baselines, achieving an average relative improvement of 8.8%-12% in personalized QA.
Abstract:Dense retrieval, which encodes queries and documents into a single dense vector, has become the dominant neural retrieval approach due to its simplicity and compatibility with fast approximate nearest neighbor algorithms. As the tasks dense retrieval performs grow in complexity, the fundamental limitations of the underlying data structure and similarity metric -- namely vectors and inner-products -- become more apparent. Prior recent work has shown theoretical limitations inherent to single vectors and inner-products that are generally tied to the embedding dimension. Given the importance of embedding dimension for retrieval capacity, understanding how dense retrieval performance changes as embedding dimension is scaled is fundamental to building next generation retrieval models that balance effectiveness and efficiency. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between embedding dimension and retrieval performance. Our experiments include two model families and a range of model sizes from each to construct a detailed picture of embedding scaling behavior. We find that the scaling behavior fits a power law, allowing us to derive scaling laws for performance given only embedding dimension, as well as a joint law accounting for embedding dimension and model size. Our analysis shows that for evaluation tasks aligned with the training task, performance continues to improve as embedding size increases, though with diminishing returns. For evaluation data that is less aligned with the training task, we find that performance is less predictable, with performance degrading with larger embedding dimensions for certain tasks. We hope our work provides additional insight into the limitations of embeddings and their behavior as well as offers a practical guide for selecting model and embedding dimension to achieve optimal performance with reduced storage and compute costs.
Abstract:Despite extensive research on a wide range of question answering (QA) systems, most existing work focuses on answer containment-i.e., assuming that answers can be directly extracted and/or generated from documents in the corpus. However, some questions require inference, i.e., deriving answers that are not explicitly stated but can be inferred from the available information. We introduce Inferential QA -- a new task that challenges models to infer answers from answer-supporting passages which provide only clues. To study this problem, we construct QUIT (QUestions requiring Inference from Texts) dataset, comprising 7,401 questions and 2.4M passages built from high-convergence human- and machine-authored hints, labeled across three relevance levels using LLM-based answerability and human verification. Through comprehensive evaluation of retrievers, rerankers, and LLM-based readers, we show that methods effective on traditional QA tasks struggle in inferential QA: retrievers underperform, rerankers offer limited gains, and fine-tuning provides inconsistent improvements. Even reasoning-oriented LLMs fail to outperform smaller general-purpose models. These findings reveal that current QA pipelines are not yet ready for inference-based reasoning. Inferential QA thus establishes a new class of QA tasks that move towards understanding and reasoning from indirect textual evidence.
Abstract:Personalization is crucial for aligning Large Language Model (LLM) outputs with individual user preferences and background knowledge. State-of-the-art solutions are based on retrieval augmentation, where relevant context from a user profile is retrieved for LLM consumption. These methods deal with a trade-off between exposing retrieved private data to cloud providers and relying on less capable local models. We introduce $P^3$, an interactive framework for high-quality personalization without revealing private profiles to server-side LLMs. In $P^3$, a large server-side model generates a sequence of $k$ draft tokens based solely on the user query, while a small client-side model, with retrieval access to the user's private profile, evaluates and modifies these drafts to better reflect user preferences. This process repeats until an end token is generated. Experiments on LaMP-QA, a recent benchmark consisting of three personalized question answering datasets, show that $P^3$ consistently outperforms both non-personalized server-side and personalized client-side baselines, achieving statistically significant improvements of $7.4%$ to $9%$ on average. Importantly, $P^3$ recovers $90.3%$ to $95.7%$ of the utility of a ``leaky'' upper-bound scenario in which the full profile is exposed to the large server-side model. Privacy analyses, including linkability and attribute inference attacks, indicate that $P^3$ preserves the privacy of a non-personalized server-side model, introducing only marginal additional leakage ($1.5%$--$3.5%$) compared to submitting a query without any personal context. Additionally, the framework is efficient for edge deployment, with the client-side model generating only $9.2%$ of the total tokens. These results demonstrate that $P^3$ provides a practical, effective solution for personalized generation with improved privacy.
Abstract:Exploratory searches are characterized by under-specified goals and evolving query intents. In such scenarios, retrieval models that can capture user-specified nuances in query intent and adapt results accordingly are desirable -- instruction-following retrieval models promise such a capability. In this work, we evaluate instructed retrievers for the prevalent yet under-explored application of aspect-conditional seed-guided exploration using an expert-annotated test collection. We evaluate both recent LLMs fine-tuned for instructed retrieval and general-purpose LLMs prompted for ranking with the highly performant Pairwise Ranking Prompting. We find that the best instructed retrievers improve on ranking relevance compared to instruction-agnostic approaches. However, we also find that instruction following performance, crucial to the user experience of interacting with models, does not mirror ranking relevance improvements and displays insensitivity or counter-intuitive behavior to instructions. Our results indicate that while users may benefit from using current instructed retrievers over instruction-agnostic models, they may not benefit from using them for long-running exploratory sessions requiring greater sensitivity to instructions.