HAKARI-Bench: A Lightweight Benchmark for Comparing Retrieval Architectures and Efficiency Settings under Unified Conditions
Summary
HAKARI-Bench is a lightweight benchmark for comparing retrieval methods across multiple configurations and languages, enabling efficient model selection and performance analysis. It reproduces full benchmarks like MTEB at high correlation while being faster to run.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 06/23/26, 09:41 AM
Paper page - HAKARI-Bench: A Lightweight Benchmark for Comparing Retrieval Architectures and Efficiency Settings under Unified Conditions
Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2606.22778
Abstract
HAKARI-Bench provides a lightweight benchmark for comparing retrieval methods across multiple configurations and languages, enabling efficient model selection and performance analysis.
With the rapid spread ofretrieval-augmented generationandsemantic search, choosing the rightembeddingandretrieval configurationis increasingly hard.Large retrieval benchmarksare comprehensive but too heavy to rerun during development, and there is little infrastructure for comparing production settings--dimensionality reduction,quantization,reranking--across many models under identical conditions. We present HAKARI-Bench, a lightweight benchmark that reconstructs existing retrieval suites into small datasets (Nano-sets): 35 benchmarks and 551 tasks across 43 languages in a unified format, enabling same-condition,model-agnostic comparisonof fiveretrieval families(BM25, dense, sparse,late interaction,rerankers) and their efficiency variants. Across 55 models, its overall ranking reproduces the officialMTEB retrievalv2,MMTEB v2retrieval, and EnglishBEIR(full) at Spearman >0.97. HAKARI-Bench does not replace full evaluation; it enables rapid model selection, regression detection, and reading the quality-efficiencyPareto frontier. Code, data, and leaderboard are released under the MIT license.
View arXiv pageView PDFProject pageGitHub2Add to collection
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2606\.22778
Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash
Models citing this paper0
No model linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.22778 in a model README.md to link it from this page.
Datasets citing this paper0
No dataset linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.22778 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.
Spaces citing this paper1
Collections including this paper0
No Collection including this paper
Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.
Similar Articles
HakushoBench: A Japanese Chart and Table VQA Benchmark from Governmental White Papers
HakushoBench is a Japanese chart and table VQA benchmark built from governmental white papers to evaluate vision-language models' understanding of complex visual data, challenging open-weight models with a 58.6% accuracy and a 34.9-point gap to proprietary models.
HakemBench: A Turkish Benchmark of Typed Decisions
HakemBench introduces an open Turkish benchmark (CC BY 4.0) for 'typed decisions'—calibrated probability outputs over fixed options—covering seven tracks such as fact-check triage, legal routing, and moderation. It evaluates decision quality (macro F1), calibration (Brier score), and selective automation (risk-coverage), while transparently disclosing weaknesses in its AI-generated gold labels and non-blind evaluation of the lab's own model.
CursorBench 3.1
CursorBench 3.1 introduces new benchmark tasks focused on codebase understanding, bugfinding, planning, and code review, and presents updated scores and cost comparisons for various AI models.
Show HN: JevBench, a reproducible benchmark for typed decision models
JevBench v1.3.0 is a reproducible benchmark for Jev-class decision models, evaluating and ranking 52 systems based on intelligence, calibration, speed, and cost.
Agent Retrieval Bench: Evaluating Repository Context Retrieval for Coding Agents
Introduces Agent Retrieval Bench, a file-level benchmark evaluating how well coding agents retrieve relevant repository files during the context-acquisition stage. The benchmark includes 427 samples across 25 repositories and evaluates various retrieval methods, finding no single family dominates.