To Case or Not to Case: An Empirical Study in Learned Sparse Retrieval
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866911396729454592 |
|---|---|
| author | Lionis, Emmanouil Georgios Ju, Jia-Huei Nalmpantis, Angelos Thuis, Casper MacAvaney, Sean Yates, Andrew |
| author_facet | Lionis, Emmanouil Georgios Ju, Jia-Huei Nalmpantis, Angelos Thuis, Casper MacAvaney, Sean Yates, Andrew |
| contents | Learned Sparse Retrieval (LSR) methods construct sparse lexical representations of queries and documents that can be efficiently searched using inverted indexes. Existing LSR approaches have relied almost exclusively on uncased backbone models, whose vocabularies exclude case-sensitive distinctions, thereby reducing vocabulary mismatch. However, the most recent state-of-the-art language models are only available in cased versions. Despite this shift, the impact of backbone model casing on LSR has not been studied, potentially posing a risk to the viability of the method going forward. To fill this gap, we systematically evaluate paired cased and uncased versions of the same backbone models across multiple datasets to assess their suitability for LSR. Our findings show that LSR models with cased backbone models by default perform substantially worse than their uncased counterparts; however, this gap can be eliminated by pre-processing the text to lowercase. Moreover, our token-level analysis reveals that, under lowercasing, cased models almost entirely suppress cased vocabulary items and behave effectively as uncased models, explaining their restored performance. This result broadens the applicability of recent cased models to the LSR setting and facilitates the integration of stronger backbone architectures into sparse retrieval. The complete code and implementation for this project are available at: https://github.com/lionisakis/Uncased-vs-cased-models-in-LSR |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2601_17500 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | To Case or Not to Case: An Empirical Study in Learned Sparse Retrieval Lionis, Emmanouil Georgios Ju, Jia-Huei Nalmpantis, Angelos Thuis, Casper MacAvaney, Sean Yates, Andrew Information Retrieval Computation and Language Learned Sparse Retrieval (LSR) methods construct sparse lexical representations of queries and documents that can be efficiently searched using inverted indexes. Existing LSR approaches have relied almost exclusively on uncased backbone models, whose vocabularies exclude case-sensitive distinctions, thereby reducing vocabulary mismatch. However, the most recent state-of-the-art language models are only available in cased versions. Despite this shift, the impact of backbone model casing on LSR has not been studied, potentially posing a risk to the viability of the method going forward. To fill this gap, we systematically evaluate paired cased and uncased versions of the same backbone models across multiple datasets to assess their suitability for LSR. Our findings show that LSR models with cased backbone models by default perform substantially worse than their uncased counterparts; however, this gap can be eliminated by pre-processing the text to lowercase. Moreover, our token-level analysis reveals that, under lowercasing, cased models almost entirely suppress cased vocabulary items and behave effectively as uncased models, explaining their restored performance. This result broadens the applicability of recent cased models to the LSR setting and facilitates the integration of stronger backbone architectures into sparse retrieval. The complete code and implementation for this project are available at: https://github.com/lionisakis/Uncased-vs-cased-models-in-LSR |
| title | To Case or Not to Case: An Empirical Study in Learned Sparse Retrieval |
| topic | Information Retrieval Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17500 |