Papers
arxiv:2607.27178

DenseOn with the LateOn: Fully Open Dense and Late-Interaction Models for Multilingual, Long-Context, and Code Search

Published on Jul 29
Authors:
,
,

Abstract

State-of-the-art retrieval models increasingly rely on closed training data, creating a reproducibility gap. We present an open end-to-end recipe for training retrieval models and study how English supervision transfers to multilingual retrieval through translate-train. We first reconstruct and curate 665M English contrastive pre-training pairs from 1.4B pairs across 34 public sources and build 1.88M supervised fine-tuning pairs with mined hard negatives. Training yields two 149M-parameter models: DenseOn, a single-vector dense model, and LateOn, a ColBERT-style late-interaction model. They achieve 56.20 and 57.22 average nDCG@10 on BEIR, respectively, setting new state-of-the-art results for this size class. We then translate the validated English data into eight languages, yielding 2.8B pairs with cross-lingual samples, and train mDenseOn and mLateOn, two 307M-parameter models built on mmBERT-base. Despite sharing their backbone, data, and objectives, their representations behave differently: the dense model is strong on English and translated languages but degrades outside translate-train support, whereas the late-interaction model generalizes better to unseen languages and scripts. This suggests that token-level matching turns translate-train from a target-language expansion strategy into a multilingual generalization recipe. We publicly release the models, datasets, and training code.

Community

Hi, I’ve been looking into why the ColBERT architecture seems to transfer so effectively across languages. While I’ve found quite a few papers that observe this strong multilingual transfer empirically, I haven’t been able to find much work that directly investigates the underlying mechanism or explains why it happens.

I was wondering if you have any thoughts or hypotheses about what might be driving this behavior. In particular, why do you think token-level late interaction leads to better cross-lingual alignment or generalization than single-vector dense retrieval?

Do you think this is mainly because token-level representations preserve the multilingual alignment already learned by the pretrained backbone, or might there be some other property of the late-interaction architecture that is important?

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2607.27178
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 4

Datasets citing this paper 14

Browse 14 datasets citing this paper

Spaces citing this paper 2

Collections including this paper 1