On the Challenges and Opportunities of Learned Sparse Retrieval for Code

Simon Lupart, Maxime Louis, Thibault Formal, Hervé Déjean, Stéphane Clinchant · Mar 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Retrieval over large codebases is a key component of modern LLM-based software engineering systems. Existing approaches predominantly rely on dense embedding models, while learned sparse retrieval (LSR) remains largely unexplored for code. However, applying sparse retrieval to code is challenging due to subword fragmentation, semantic gaps between natural-language queries and code, diversity of programming languages and sub-tasks, and the length of code documents, which can harm sparsity and latency. We introduce SPLADE-Code, the first large-scale family of learned sparse retrieval models specialized for code retrieval (600M-8B parameters). Despite a lightweight one-stage training pipeline, SPLADE-Code achieves state-of-the-art performance among retrievers under 1B parameters (75.4 on MTEB Code) and competitive results at larger scales (79.0 with 8B). We show that learned expansion tokens are critical to bridge lexical and semantic matching, and provide a latency analysis showing that LSR enables sub-millisecond retrieval on a 1M-passage collection with little effectiveness loss.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 20%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.