MAIR: A Massive Benchmark for Evaluating Instructed Retrieval

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10127v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:26:51 GMT
• Title: MAIR: A Massive Benchmark for Evaluating Instructed Retrieval
• Authors: Weiwei Sun, Zhengliang Shi, Jiulong Wu, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Yiding Liu, Min Cao, Dawei Yin, Zhaochun Ren,
• Abstract summary: Recent information retrieval (IR) models are pre-trained and instruction-tuned on massive datasets and tasks. We propose MAIR (Massive Instructed Retrieval Benchmark), a heterogeneous IR benchmark that includes 126 distinct IR tasks across 6 domains. We benchmark state-of-the-art instruction-tuned text embedding models and re-ranking models.
• Score: 39.22381869406682
• License:
• Abstract: Recent information retrieval (IR) models are pre-trained and instruction-tuned on massive datasets and tasks, enabling them to perform well on a wide range of tasks and potentially generalize to unseen tasks with instructions. However, existing IR benchmarks focus on a limited scope of tasks, making them insufficient for evaluating the latest IR models. In this paper, we propose MAIR (Massive Instructed Retrieval Benchmark), a heterogeneous IR benchmark that includes 126 distinct IR tasks across 6 domains, collected from existing datasets. We benchmark state-of-the-art instruction-tuned text embedding models and re-ranking models. Our experiments reveal that instruction-tuned models generally achieve superior performance compared to non-instruction-tuned models on MAIR. Additionally, our results suggest that current instruction-tuned text embedding models and re-ranking models still lack effectiveness in specific long-tail tasks. MAIR is publicly available at https://github.com/sunnweiwei/Mair.

Related papers

• LiveXiv -- A Multi-Modal Live Benchmark Based on Arxiv Papers Content [62.816876067499415]
  We propose LiveXiv: a scalable evolving live benchmark based on scientific ArXiv papers. LiveXiv accesses domain-specific manuscripts at any given timestamp and proposes to automatically generate visual question-answer pairs. We benchmark multiple open and proprietary Large Multi-modal Models (LMMs) on the first version of our benchmark, showing its challenging nature and exposing the models true abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:51:23Z)
• RE-AdaptIR: Improving Information Retrieval through Reverse Engineered Adaptation [37.969478059005574]
  Large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned for text-retrieval have demonstrated state-of-the-art results across several information retrieval benchmarks. We explore the effectiveness of extending reverse engineered adaptation to the context of information retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T22:28:11Z)
• RAR-b: Reasoning as Retrieval Benchmark [7.275757292756447]
  We transform reasoning tasks into retrieval tasks to evaluate reasoning abilities stored in retriever models. Recent decoder-based embedding models show great promise in narrowing the gap. We release Reasoning as Retrieval Benchmark (RAR-b), a holistic suite of tasks and settings to evaluate the reasoning abilities stored in retriever models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T14:34:48Z)
• FollowIR: Evaluating and Teaching Information Retrieval Models to Follow Instructions [71.5977045423177]
  We study the use of instructions in Information Retrieval systems. We introduce our dataset FollowIR, which contains a rigorous instruction evaluation benchmark. We show that it is possible for IR models to learn to follow complex instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T14:42:29Z)
• RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling [100.28366840977966]
  We present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation of reward models. The dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T17:49:54Z)
• How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources [117.6496550359768]
  This work explores recent advances in instruction-tuning language models on a range of open instruction-following datasets. We provide a large set of instruction-tuned models from 6.7B to 65B parameters in size, trained on 12 instruction datasets. We evaluate them on their factual knowledge, reasoning, multilinguality, coding, and open-ended instruction following abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T19:59:23Z)
• How Many Data Samples is an Additional Instruction Worth? [20.66688303609522]
  Recently introduced instruction-paradigm empowers non-expert users to leverage NLP resources by defining a new task in natural language. Our results indicate that an additional instruction can be equivalent to 200 data samples on average across tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-17T08:30:30Z)
• BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models [41.45240621979654]
  We introduce BEIR, a heterogeneous benchmark for information retrieval. We study the effectiveness of nine state-of-the-art retrieval models in a zero-shot evaluation setup. Dense-retrieval models are computationally more efficient but often underperform other approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T23:29:55Z)
• Interpretable Learning-to-Rank with Generalized Additive Models [78.42800966500374]
  Interpretability of learning-to-rank models is a crucial yet relatively under-examined research area. Recent progress on interpretable ranking models largely focuses on generating post-hoc explanations for existing black-box ranking models. We lay the groundwork for intrinsically interpretable learning-to-rank by introducing generalized additive models (GAMs) into ranking tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-06T01:51:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.