Multi-stage Retrieval

TLDR

Multi-Stage Retrieval is a design pattern that breaks the retrieval process into sequential steps to solve the "needle in a haystack" problem efficiently[1][2]. In a standard single-stage system, a vector database returns the top-k results based on semantic similarity. However, semantic similarity does not always equal relevance. Multi-stage systems introduce a "Coarse-to-Fine" pipeline: first, a fast Bi-encoder retrieves a broad set of candidates (optimizing for Recall), and then a computationally expensive Cross-encoder (Reranker) re-evaluates those candidates to surface the most relevant ones (optimizing for Precision)[2]. This approach significantly reduces noise in the context window of Large Language Models (LLMs), leading to higher factual accuracy and reduced hallucinations.

Conceptual Overview

The fundamental challenge in Information Retrieval (IR) is the trade-off between computational cost and retrieval quality. To understand Multi-stage Retrieval, we must examine the two primary architectures used in modern AI agents:

1. The Bi-Encoder (Stage 1: Coarse Retrieval)

In the first stage, the system uses a Bi-encoder architecture. Here, the query and the documents are embedded into a vector space independently. At search time, the system performs a dot product or cosine similarity calculation between the query vector and millions of document vectors.

• Pros: Extremely fast; sub-millisecond latency using Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN) indexes like HNSW.
• Cons: "Shallow" semantic understanding. Because the query and document do not "talk" to each other during the embedding process, the model may miss nuanced relationships.

2. The Cross-Encoder (Stage 2: Fine Reranking)

The second stage employs a Cross-encoder. Unlike the Bi-encoder, the Cross-encoder processes the query and a candidate document simultaneously through the transformer layers. This allows for full self-attention across both inputs.

• Pros: High precision; understands complex interactions between query terms and document context.
• Cons: Extremely slow. It is computationally impossible to run a Cross-encoder against millions of documents in real-time.

The Multi-Stage Synergy

Multi-stage retrieval combines these by using the Bi-encoder to narrow down the search space from 1,000,000+ documents to ~100 candidates, and then using the Cross-encoder to rank those 100 candidates perfectly[2]. This ensures that the LLM receives only the most pertinent information without the latency of a full-corpus deep scan.

![Infographic Placeholder]( Infographic: The Multi-Stage Retrieval Pipeline

1. Input: User Query (e.g., "How does tax law apply to remote workers in Estonia?")
2. Stage 1 (Recall): Vector Search (Bi-encoder) + Keyword Search (BM25). Returns Top 100 candidates.
3. Filtering: Metadata filtering (e.g., Date > 2022) using a Trie-based index for efficient prefix matching of tags.
4. Stage 2 (Precision): Reranker (Cross-encoder). Scores the 100 candidates from 0.0 to 1.0.
5. Stage 3 (Refinement): Context Compression. LLM summarizes the top 5 reranked documents.
6. Output: Refined Context fed into the final LLM Generation stage. )

Practical Implementations

Implementing a multi-stage pipeline requires careful orchestration of the retrieval components and the evaluation of prompt variants.

Step 1: Initial Retrieval and Hybrid Search

Most production systems start with Hybrid Search, combining dense vector retrieval with sparse keyword retrieval (BM25). This ensures that both semantic meaning and exact term matches (like product IDs or legal codes) are captured. To optimize this stage, developers often use A (comparing prompt variants) to determine which query expansion technique—such as "Multi-Query Retrieval"—yields the highest recall for the specific domain.

Step 2: Efficient Filtering with Tries

When dealing with massive metadata (e.g., millions of file paths or hierarchical categories), a Trie (prefix tree) can be used to perform rapid prefix-based filtering before the reranking stage. For instance, if a user limits their search to /docs/legal/*, a Trie allows the system to instantly prune non-matching branches of the document hierarchy, ensuring the reranker only sees valid candidates.

Step 3: The Reranking Logic

Once the top-k (e.g., k=100) candidates are retrieved, they are passed to a reranker model (e.g., BGE-Reranker or Cohere Rerank).

# Conceptual Reranking Logic
candidates = vector_db.search(query, k=100)
reranked_results = reranker.compute_score(query, candidates)
final_context = sorted(reranked_results, key=lambda x: x.score, reverse=True)[:5]

The choice of k for the first stage is critical. If k is too low, the "correct" document might never make it to the reranker (Recall failure). If k is too high, latency spikes.

Step 4: Latency Management

To maintain a responsive agent, multi-stage retrieval often employs "Streaming Reranking" or "Cascading Rerankers," where a smaller, faster Cross-encoder filters the top 100 to 20, and a larger, more powerful model filters the top 20 to 5.

Advanced Techniques

As agent design patterns evolve, multi-stage retrieval has moved from static pipelines to dynamic, iterative loops.

Iterative Retrieval (Self-RAG and FLARE)

In complex reasoning tasks, a single retrieval pass is often insufficient. Iterative Retrieval allows the agent to retrieve, generate a partial answer, and then use that partial answer to retrieve more information[1][4].

• Self-RAG: The model generates "reflection tokens" to decide whether it needs to retrieve more data or if the current context is sufficient[4].
• FLARE (Forward-Looking Active REtrieval): The system predicts the next sentence; if the confidence is low, it triggers a new retrieval stage using the predicted sentence as a query.

Recursive Retrieval

This technique is used for hierarchical data. Instead of retrieving raw text chunks, the system retrieves "Parent" documents or "Summaries." If a summary is relevant, the system recursively retrieves the underlying "Child" chunks. This prevents the "Lost in the Middle" phenomenon where LLMs struggle with long contexts by ensuring only the most granular, relevant pieces are provided.

Query Transformation and HyDE

Before the first stage of retrieval, the query itself can be transformed. HyDE (Hypothetical Document Embeddings) uses an LLM to generate a "fake" answer to the user's query. The system then uses this fake answer to perform vector search. This often works better than searching with the query itself because it moves the search into the "answer space" rather than the "question space."

Research and Future Directions

The frontier of multi-stage retrieval is focused on "Late Interaction" and "End-to-End Tuning."

Late Interaction (ColBERT)

ColBERT (Contextualized Late Interaction over BERT) represents a middle ground between Bi-encoders and Cross-encoders[3]. It stores multi-vector representations for every token in a document. During retrieval, it performs a "MaxSim" operation. This provides near-Cross-encoder accuracy with Bi-encoder speeds, potentially collapsing the multi-stage pipeline into a single, highly efficient stage.

Domain-Specific Multi-Stage Tuning

Research shows that generic rerankers often fail in specialized fields like medicine or law[5]. Future systems will likely utilize Domain-Specific Multi-Stage Tuning, where the reranker is fine-tuned on the specific jargon and relationship structures of a vertical. This involves adjusting the scoring thresholds and the "A" (comparing prompt variants) evaluation metrics to prioritize precision over all else.

Agentic Retrieval

We are moving toward a world where retrieval is not a fixed pipeline but a tool used by an agent. An agent might decide: "This query is simple; I'll use single-stage BM25," or "This query is a complex legal comparison; I'll trigger a 4-stage iterative retrieval with recursive summarization."

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why not just use a larger context window instead of multi-stage retrieval?

While context windows (like Gemini's 2M tokens) are growing, "Context Poisoning" remains a risk. Passing 100 irrelevant documents alongside 1 relevant one degrades the LLM's reasoning capabilities. Multi-stage retrieval acts as a "signal-to-noise" filter, ensuring the LLM focuses only on high-quality data.

Q: How do I choose the right 'k' for my first stage?

This is typically determined through empirical testing. You measure "Recall@K"—the probability that the correct document is within the top K results. If Recall@50 is 95% but Recall@100 is 96%, the extra latency of reranking 50 more documents may not be worth the 1% gain.

Q: Can I use an LLM as a reranker?

Yes, this is known as "LLM-as-a-Judge" reranking. You provide the LLM with the query and 10 documents and ask it to rank them. While highly accurate, it is significantly more expensive and slower than using a dedicated Cross-encoder model like BGE-Reranker.

Q: What is the role of a Trie in retrieval?

A Trie is used for efficient constraint satisfaction. If your retrieval must be restricted to specific namespaces or categories, a Trie allows the system to validate and filter candidate document IDs or paths in $O(L)$ time (where $L$ is the length of the path), which is much faster than scanning a database table.

Q: How does "A" (comparing prompt variants) help in retrieval?

Retrieval performance is highly sensitive to how the query is phrased. By using "A" testing, developers can programmatically compare how different prompt templates (e.g., "Find documents about X" vs. "Summarize the key aspects of X to find matches") affect the hit rate in the first and second stages of retrieval.

---