-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24.8k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
[DOCS] Retrievers and rerankers (#110007)
Co-authored-by: Adam Demjen <[email protected]>
- Loading branch information
1 parent
7ba5b4f
commit b535df7
Showing
5 changed files
with
261 additions
and
38 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions
8
docs/reference/search/search-your-data/retrievers-reranking/index.asciidoc
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | ||
[[retrievers-reranking-overview]] | ||
== Retrievers and reranking | ||
|
||
* <<retrievers-overview>> | ||
* <<semantic-reranking>> | ||
|
||
include::retrievers-overview.asciidoc[] | ||
include::semantic-reranking.asciidoc[] |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
151 changes: 151 additions & 0 deletions
151
...erence/search/search-your-data/retrievers-reranking/semantic-reranking.asciidoc
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ | ||
[[semantic-reranking]] | ||
=== Semantic reranking | ||
|
||
preview::[] | ||
|
||
[TIP] | ||
==== | ||
This overview focuses more on the high-level concepts and use cases for semantic reranking. For full implementation details on how to set up and use semantic reranking in {es}, see the <<retriever,reference documentation>> in the Search API docs. | ||
==== | ||
|
||
Rerankers improve the relevance of results from earlier-stage retrieval mechanisms. | ||
_Semantic_ rerankers use machine learning models to reorder search results based on their semantic similarity to a query. | ||
|
||
First-stage retrievers and rankers must be very fast and efficient because they process either the entire corpus, or all matching documents. | ||
In a multi-stage pipeline, you can progressively use more computationally intensive ranking functions and techniques, as they will operate on smaller result sets at each step. | ||
This helps avoid query latency degradation and keeps costs manageable. | ||
|
||
Semantic reranking requires relatively large and complex machine learning models and operates in real-time in response to queries. | ||
This technique makes sense on a small _top-k_ result set, as one the of the final steps in a pipeline. | ||
This is a powerful technique for improving search relevance that works equally well with keyword, semantic, or hybrid retrieval algorithms. | ||
|
||
The next sections provide more details on the benefits, use cases, and model types used for semantic reranking. | ||
The final sections include a practical, high-level overview of how to implement <<semantic-reranking-in-es,semantic reranking in {es}>> and links to the full reference documentation. | ||
|
||
[discrete] | ||
[[semantic-reranking-use-cases]] | ||
==== Use cases | ||
|
||
Semantic reranking enables a variety of use cases: | ||
|
||
* *Lexical (BM25) retrieval results reranking* | ||
** Out-of-the-box semantic search by adding a simple API call to any lexical/BM25 retrieval pipeline. | ||
** Adds semantic search capabilities on top of existing indices without reindexing, perfect for quick improvements. | ||
** Ideal for environments with complex existing indices. | ||
|
||
* *Semantic retrieval results reranking* | ||
** Improves results from semantic retrievers using ELSER sparse vector embeddings or dense vector embeddings by using more powerful models. | ||
** Adds a refinement layer on top of hybrid retrieval with <<rrf, reciprocal rank fusion (RRF)>>. | ||
|
||
* *General applications* | ||
** Supports automatic and transparent chunking, eliminating the need for pre-chunking at index time. | ||
** Provides explicit control over document relevance in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) uses cases or other scenarios involving language model (LLM) inputs. | ||
|
||
Now that we've outlined the value of semantic reranking, we'll explore the specific models that power this process and how they differ. | ||
|
||
[discrete] | ||
[[semantic-reranking-models]] | ||
==== Cross-encoder and bi-encoder models | ||
|
||
At a high level, two model types are used for semantic reranking: cross-encoders and bi-encoders. | ||
|
||
NOTE: In this version, {es} *only supports cross-encoders* for semantic reranking. | ||
|
||
* A *cross-encoder model* can be thought of as a more powerful, all-in-one solution, because it generates query-aware document representations. | ||
It takes the query and document texts as a single, concatenated input. | ||
* A *bi-encoder model* takes as input either document or query text. | ||
Documents and query embeddings are computed separately, so they aren't aware of each other. | ||
** To compute a ranking score, an external operation is required. This typically involves computing dot-product or cosine similarity between the query and document embeddings. | ||
|
||
In brief, cross-encoders provide high accuracy but are more resource-intensive. | ||
Bi-encoders are faster and more cost-effective but less precise. | ||
|
||
In future versions, {es} will also support bi-encoders. | ||
If you're interested in a more detailed analysis of the practical differences between cross-encoders and bi-encoders, untoggle the next section. | ||
|
||
.Comparisons between cross-encoder and bi-encoder | ||
[%collapsible] | ||
============== | ||
The following is a non-exhaustive list of considerations when choosing between cross-encoders and bi-encoders for semantic reranking: | ||
* Because a cross-encoder model simultaneously processes both query and document texts, it can better infer their relevance, making it more effective as a reranker than a bi-encoder. | ||
* Cross-encoder models are generally larger and more computationally intensive, resulting in higher latencies and increased computational costs. | ||
* There are significantly fewer open-source cross-encoders, while bi-encoders offer a wide variety of sizes, languages, and other trade-offs. | ||
* The effectiveness of cross-encoders can also improve the relevance of semantic retrievers. | ||
For example, their ability to take word order into account can improve on dense or sparse embedding retrieval. | ||
* When trained in tandem with specific retrievers (like lexical/BM25), cross-encoders can “correct” typical errors made by those retrievers. | ||
* Cross-encoders output scores that are consistent across queries. | ||
This enables you to maintain high relevance in result sets, by setting a minimum score threshold for all queries. | ||
For example, this is important when using results in a RAG workflow or if you're otherwise feeding results to LLMs. | ||
Note that similarity scores from bi-encoders/embedding similarities are _query-dependent_, meaning you cannot set universal cut-offs. | ||
* Bi-encoders rerank using embeddings. You can improve your reranking latency by creating embeddings at ingest-time. These embeddings can be stored for reranking without being indexed for retrieval, reducing your memory footprint. | ||
============== | ||
|
||
[discrete] | ||
[[semantic-reranking-in-es]] | ||
==== Semantic reranking in {es} | ||
|
||
In {es}, semantic rerankers are implemented using the {es} <<inference-apis,Inference API>> and a <<retriever,retriever>>. | ||
|
||
To use semantic reranking in {es}, you need to: | ||
|
||
. Choose a reranking model. In addition to cross-encoder models running on {es} inference nodes, we also expose external models and services via the Inference API to semantic rerankers. | ||
** This includes cross-encoder models running in https://huggingface.co/inference-endpoints[HuggingFace Inference Endpoints] and the https://cohere.com/rerank[Cohere Rerank API]. | ||
. Create a `rerank` task using the <<put-inference-api,{es} Inference API>>. | ||
The Inference API creates an inference endpoint and configures your chosen machine learning model to perform the reranking task. | ||
. Define a `text_similarity_reranker` retriever in your search request. | ||
The retriever syntax makes it simple to configure both the retrieval and reranking of search results in a single API call. | ||
|
||
.*Example search request* with semantic reranker | ||
[%collapsible] | ||
============== | ||
The following example shows a search request that uses a semantic reranker to reorder the top-k documents based on their semantic similarity to the query. | ||
[source,console] | ||
---- | ||
POST _search | ||
{ | ||
"retriever": { | ||
"text_similarity_reranker": { | ||
"retriever": { | ||
"standard": { | ||
"query": { | ||
"match": { | ||
"text": "How often does the moon hide the sun?" | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
"field": "text", | ||
"inference_id": "my-cohere-rerank-model", | ||
"inference_text": "How often does the moon hide the sun?", | ||
"rank_window_size": 100, | ||
"min_score": 0.5 | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
---- | ||
// TEST[skip:TBD] | ||
============== | ||
|
||
[discrete] | ||
[[semantic-reranking-types]] | ||
==== Supported reranking types | ||
|
||
The following `text_similarity_reranker` model configuration options are available. | ||
|
||
*Text similarity with cross-encoder* | ||
|
||
This solution uses a hosted or 3rd party inference service which relies on a cross-encoder model. | ||
The model receives the text fields from the _top-K_ documents, as well as the search query, and calculates scores directly, which are then used to rerank the documents. | ||
|
||
Used with the Cohere inference service rolled out in 8.13, turn on semantic reranking that works out of the box. | ||
Check out our https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-labs/blob/main/notebooks/integrations/cohere/cohere-elasticsearch.ipynb[Python notebook] for using Cohere with {es}. | ||
|
||
[discrete] | ||
[[semantic-reranking-learn-more]] | ||
==== Learn more | ||
|
||
* Read the <<retriever,retriever reference documentation>> for syntax and implementation details | ||
* Learn more about the <<retrievers-overview,retrievers>> abstraction | ||
* Learn more about the Elastic <<inference-apis,Inference APIs>> | ||
* Check out our https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-labs/blob/main/notebooks/integrations/cohere/cohere-elasticsearch.ipynb[Python notebook] for using Cohere with {es} |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters