1
00:00:00,320 --> 00:00:06,640
Imagine searching delivery policies to learn whether batteries
can travel by air, among several related documents.

2
00:00:07,380 --> 00:00:14,400
The retriever finds passages about shipping, damaged products,
and air transport, but their relevance differs.

3
00:00:15,260 --> 00:00:21,320
A reranker must identify which supplied passage answers the
question, then improve the candidate ordering.

4
00:00:22,220 --> 00:00:26,660
These fictional documents describe teaching roles rather than
actual benchmark passages.

5
00:00:27,660 --> 00:00:33,400
Generating candidate identifiers adds computation beyond
estimating the relevance of supplied documents.

6
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:39,200
CompRank directly scores candidates while reducing the tokens
needed for comparison.

7
00:00:39,740 --> 00:00:45,080
CompRank places independent document blocks before a query
decision block that scores the candidates.

8
00:00:45,980 --> 00:00:52,240
Tokens inside each document use causal self-attention, building
a representation from that document's own context.

9
00:00:53,140 --> 00:00:58,400
Cross-document attention is prohibited, so document encoding
does not depend on neighboring candidates.

10
00:00:59,420 --> 00:01:05,060
Local positions avoid document-order offsets, reducing one
source of candidate-permutation sensitivity.

11
00:01:06,000 --> 00:01:11,780
The query block still sees all document blocks, maintaining a
global candidate view when relevance is estimated.

12
00:01:12,560 --> 00:01:18,120
Independent document states can therefore be reused in principle
across queries and reordered candidate lists.

13
00:01:18,700 --> 00:01:25,580
Independent encoding removes cross-document interactions, but
query attention still scales with document tokens.

14
00:01:26,420 --> 00:01:33,500
Compression exposes only selected document key-value states to
the query block, reducing the final interaction cost.

15
00:01:34,680 --> 00:01:41,140
Document representations stay unchanged; selection controls
which states query-to-document attention sees.

16
00:01:42,100 --> 00:01:47,760
Segment-wise selection retains regularly spaced tokens, covering
the document rather than only its end.

17
00:01:48,720 --> 00:01:54,660
The illustrated position numbers show regular spacing, without
asserting which particular words an experiment retained.

18
00:01:55,520 --> 00:02:01,780
The default Step-ten strategy uses that coverage to balance a
smaller attention budget against ranking quality.

19
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:08,320
Scoring aggregates query attention on retained document tokens,
treating that mass as relevance evidence.

20
00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:15,100
Attention is normalized across the retained document tokens and
then aggregated into a score for each candidate.

21
00:02:15,840 --> 00:02:22,100
The main Mistral configuration uses one decision token,
averaging scores across attention heads at a fixed layer.

22
00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:26,960
Inference directly sorts supplied documents by their
attention-derived scores.

23
00:02:27,440 --> 00:02:32,580
No identifier sequence is generated; scoring avoids sequential
decoding of a ranking string.

24
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:38,820
Its output is candidate order, not reconstructed document text
or a generated answer to the original query.

25
00:02:39,587 --> 00:02:46,047
Identifier generation uses the full vocabulary, including tokens
unrelated to valid input candidates.

26
00:02:47,067 --> 00:02:52,847
CompRank uses attention-derived scores to form a pointer
distribution over the input candidates.

27
00:02:53,667 --> 00:03:00,027
The CopyNet-style loss supervises the relevant candidate,
training the same scores inference later sorts.

28
00:03:01,207 --> 00:03:07,247
Candidate selection replaces identifier generation, matching
supervision to the reranker decision.

29
00:03:08,247 --> 00:03:14,827
Experiments use Mistral seven B with thirty-document training
lists and positive examples derived from MS MARCO.

30
00:03:15,667 --> 00:03:23,087
BEIR evaluation compares rerankers on the same one hundred BM
twenty-five retrieved candidates across seven datasets.

31
00:03:23,627 --> 00:03:32,827
Table one compares compression strategies within CompRank,
measuring average NDCG at ten over seven BEIR datasets.

32
00:03:33,627 --> 00:03:40,307
The full-token version retains all document tokens and scores
thirty-nine point seven on the reported average metric.

33
00:03:41,207 --> 00:03:47,287
Step-ten retains ten point two percent of tokens and scores
thirty-nine point two, half a point lower.

34
00:03:47,987 --> 00:03:53,867
Token retention measures attention budget; NDCG measures ranking
quality, so they have different meanings.

35
00:03:54,547 --> 00:04:00,787
This averages seven dataset scores, rather than measuring task
completion or promising every-cell improvement.

36
00:04:01,487 --> 00:04:07,447
The matched test supports structured coverage, while stronger
compression still trades away ranking quality.

37
00:04:08,047 --> 00:04:14,267
A TREC-COVID test trains on thirty-document lists, then
evaluates up to five hundred without further fine-tuning.

38
00:04:15,007 --> 00:04:21,027
At five hundred candidates, generation-based Direct-List takes
one hundred fourteen point five seconds per query.

39
00:04:21,947 --> 00:04:27,987
Full-token CompRank takes sixteen point two two seconds;
Step-ten takes twelve for the same candidate count.

40
00:04:29,187 --> 00:04:34,967
These end-to-end timings use one A one hundred GPU with eighty
gigabytes of memory and batch size one.

41
00:04:35,927 --> 00:04:41,307
Measured evaluation recomputes document blocks; optimized
caching remains a separate design opportunity.

42
00:04:42,167 --> 00:04:48,107
The gain combines decoding-free scoring and compressed
attention, rather than unimplemented serving optimizations.

43
00:04:48,647 --> 00:04:55,007
Return to policy search: choose useful supplied evidence, rather
than write a document identifier sequence.

44
00:04:55,947 --> 00:05:02,307
CompRank independently encodes documents, compresses
query-visible states, and ranks attention scores.

45
00:05:03,267 --> 00:05:08,847
Candidate-level supervision trains those scores, aligning the
learning objective with inference-time sorting.

46
00:05:09,867 --> 00:05:15,607
Computation targets sparse comparison signals, instead of dense
interactions between every document pair.

47
00:05:16,587 --> 00:05:22,327
Quality and latency evidence is configuration-specific; caching
potential differs from measured serving.

48
00:05:23,287 --> 00:05:29,607
Align representation, computation, and supervision with the
relevance decision the retrieval system needs.