PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

ACID: Abstractive, Content-Based IDs for Document Retrieval with Language Models

Haoxin Li, Phillip Keung, Daniel Cheng, Jungo Kasai, Noah A. Smith

representation learninggenerative retrievaldocument identifierslarge language models
25.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
15.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
32.40100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Generative retrieval (Wang et al., 2022; Tay et al., 2022) is a new approach for end-to-end document retrieval that directly generates document identifiers given an input query. Techniques for designing effective, high-quality document IDs remain largely unexplored. We introduce ACID, in which each document's ID is composed of abstractive keyphrases generated by a large language model, rather than an integer ID sequence as done in past work. We compare our method with the current state-of-the-art technique for ID generation, which produces IDs through hierarchical clustering of document embeddings. We also examine simpler methods to generate natural-language document IDs, including the naive approach of using the first k words of each document as its ID or words with high BM25 scores in that document. We show that using ACID improves top-10 and top-20 accuracy by 15.6% and 14.4% (relative) respectively versus the state-of-the-art baseline on the MSMARCO 100k retrieval task, and 4.4% and 4.0% respectively on the Natural Questions 100k retrieval task. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of human-readable, natural-language IDs in generative retrieval with LMs. The code for reproducing our results and the keyword-augmented datasets can be found at (link-redacted-during-review).

Author context

Most prolific author: 5 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 46% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)