Hierarchical Retrieval: Multi-Level Search

• Hierarchical Retrieval is a method that leverages multi-level, nested data structures to optimize search granularity and efficiency.
• It employs dual encoders, recursive clustering, and hierarchical traversal techniques to balance retrieval speed and accuracy across various domains.
• Emerging systems demonstrate enhanced recall, reduced computational cost, and improved explainability in applications ranging from QA to recommendation.

Hierarchical Retrieval (HR) is the family of information retrieval methodologies that exploit and operate over data exhibiting inherent multi-level, nested, or tree-structured organization. HR manifests in diverse domains—including text, graphs, video, e-commerce, recommendation, and knowledge graphs—by leveraging compositional, part–whole, or parent–child relationships to maximize both retrieval efficiency and the granularity of matching. Modern HR systems address the challenge of optimizing vector search, evidence recall, transparency, and computational cost through methods that range from explicit hierarchical encoding and traversal, to neural coarse-to-fine mechanisms and clustering-based adaptive retrieval.

1. Principles and Mathematical Foundations of Hierarchical Retrieval

HR strategies differentiate themselves from flat, “one-level” retrieval by explicitly modeling the hierarchy of documents, entities, or features to enable retrieval at multiple levels of abstraction. Core principles include:

• Multi-level Representation: Documents, product catalogs, knowledge bases, or circuit diagrams are represented as trees, DAGs, or recursively clustered sets, such that parent nodes summarize or aggregate the content of their children (e.g., (Liu et al., 2021, Gupta et al., 11 Feb 2025, Goel et al., 14 Jun 2024, Zala et al., 2023, Freymuth et al., 30 Jan 2025, You et al., 19 Sep 2025)).
• Dual Encoder and Matching Functions: Dense HR systems often use a dual encoder architecture, where both queries and hierarchy nodes (e.g., documents, passages, fields) are embedded, then matched via similarity functions such as inner product or cosine:

$$f_{\theta}(q, p) = \langle E_Q^{(\theta)}(q), E_P^{(\theta)}(p) \rangle$$

Each layer of the hierarchy may get its own encoder and scoring head (Liu et al., 2021).

• Hierarchical Traversal and Filtering: Algorithms such as DFS/BFS over trees or community hierarchies are used to traverse and select relevant nodes. For example, pruning with thresholds—such as a selection threshold $S$ and delta threshold $\Delta$—regulates when to expand or stop on a branch (Goel et al., 14 Jun 2024).
• Negative Sampling at Multiple Levels: Effective training of HR models frequently deploys “hard negative” sampling within the same document or section (in-doc, in-sec negatives), which forces fine-grained discriminativity among closely-related nodes (Liu et al., 2021).
• Clustering-Based Construction: Many HR pipelines build their hierarchy through bottom-up or agglomerative clustering of text or graph embeddings using measures such as cosine distance, with recursive summarization at each node (Chucri et al., 2 Oct 2024, Yu et al., 16 Jun 2025).

Table: Core HR Modeling paradigms

Paradigm	Structure	Retrieval Criteria
Two-stage dense hierarchical	Document & passage levels	Combined local-global similarity (Liu et al., 2021)
Tree-based routing (ReTreever)	Binary tree	Learnable split functions, probabilistic routing (Gupta et al., 11 Feb 2025)
Clustering tree (HiChunk, Tree-based RAG)	Agglomerative cluster tree	Adaptive subtree selection (Yu et al., 16 Jun 2025, Lu et al., 15 Sep 2025)
Block-triangular attention (CHARM)	Field hierarchy	Cascading field attention (Freymuth et al., 30 Jan 2025)
Graph hierarchical community	Graph + LLM	C-HNSW, summary-based filtering (Wang et al., 14 Feb 2025)

2. Model Architectures and Algorithms

Distinct architectural patterns emerge in state-of-the-art HR systems:

1. Two-Stage Retrieval Pipelines: A first-stage “coarse” retrieval filters candidates at a higher hierarchical level (e.g., document), followed by “fine” retrieval of sub-units (passages, fields, moments), with score fusion or reranking (Liu et al., 2021, Freymuth et al., 30 Jan 2025, Singh et al., 4 Mar 2025).
2. Hierarchical Attention Mechanisms: Retrieval and representation are modulated by mechanisms such as block-triangular attention matrices, which cascade information down field or section hierarchies, ensuring that lower-level units incorporate higher-level context but not vice versa (Freymuth et al., 30 Jan 2025).
3. Recursive Cluster+Summarize (RAPTOR, adRAP, HiChunk): Textual content is split into small chunks, recursively clustered (UMAP + GMM), and locally or globally summarized. The recursive structure enables dynamic adaptation for additions/removals in the dataset (Chucri et al., 2 Oct 2024, Lu et al., 15 Sep 2025).
4. Coarse-to-Fine Routing (ReTreever): Binary trees with learnable split functions probabilistically route query/document representations, yielding multi-level retrieval that can trade off cost and recall (Gupta et al., 11 Feb 2025).
5. Graph-Based and Knowledge Graph HR: HR is applied on attributed graphs, leveraging LLM-driven clustering and C-HNSW (Community-based Hierarchical Navigable Small World) indices for scalable lookup (Wang et al., 14 Feb 2025, Huang et al., 13 Mar 2025, Gao et al., 5 Feb 2025).

3. Evaluation Metrics and Empirical Results

Hierarchical retrieval systems are evaluated using a combination of standard retrieval metrics and task-specific measures:

• Recall@k / NDCG@k: Used to evaluate top-k retrieval at different levels of the hierarchy (Freymuth et al., 30 Jan 2025, Gupta et al., 11 Feb 2025, Singh et al., 4 Mar 2025, You et al., 19 Sep 2025).
• Chunking F1 (HiCBench): Hierarchical chunking accuracy is measured at each hierarchical level and overall, reflecting the proportion of correctly identified segment boundaries (Lu et al., 15 Sep 2025).
• Token cost / Context length: HR frameworks such as HIRO (Goel et al., 14 Jun 2024) and ArchRAG (Wang et al., 14 Feb 2025) assess the efficiency-adjusted performance, quantifying both retrieval accuracy and context length delivered to LLMs, a critical metric in RAG applications.
• Interpretability/Explainability Scores: HyPE (Lee et al., 8 Nov 2024) introduces “explanation quality” metrics, rated both by human judges and via semantic similarity measures, for stepwise path-based explanations.
• Domain-Specific Metrics: For legal or circuit diagram retrieval, expert human evaluations and application-specific precision/AP retrieval measures are used (Yu et al., 16 Jun 2025, Gao et al., 5 Feb 2025).

Empirical findings consistently show (traceable to reported data):

• Significant retrieval accuracy improvements over flat/naïve baselines, especially for tasks requiring both high recall and context-awareness ((Liu et al., 2021); up to 12% Top-1 boost over DPR; (Freymuth et al., 30 Jan 2025); (Wang et al., 14 Feb 2025)).
• Substantial efficiency gains (e.g., DHR reduces search time 3–4× by pruning candidate pool; ReTreever yields lowest retrieval latency among HR methods).
• Marked improvements in end-to-end system performance in QA, RAG, and explainable recommendation (2511.05572, Sun et al., 12 Jul 2025).

4. Adaptivity, Scalability, and Dynamic Data

Several recent works address the complications that arise in dynamic, large-scale, or streaming data settings:

• Adaptive Updating of Hierarchies: Algorithms such as adRAP (Chucri et al., 2 Oct 2024) adapt hierarchical clusters with incremental GMM updates and pre-fitted UMAP transforms to reduce recomputation when documents are added or removed.
• Automatic Granularity Selection: Tree-based BFS or DFS search (e.g., (Yu et al., 16 Jun 2025, Goel et al., 14 Jun 2024)) obviates the need for a fixed top-k parameter, adapting retrieval granularity to the query’s specificity.
• Multi-Agent and Multi-Source Retrieval: HierSearch (Tan et al., 11 Aug 2025) utilizes hierarchical RL to orchestrate specialized deep search agents (local and Web), with a high-level planner integrating results and a knowledge refiner filtering noisy evidence.

This adaptivity ensures both scalability and robustness: as the corpus grows or changes, HR systems minimize costly reprocessing and dynamically align the scope of information retrieved to the information demands of specific queries.

5. Hierarchical Retrieval in Specialized Modalities and Domains

HR is not limited to unstructured text; it extends to:

• Multimodal Retrieval: Hierarchical retrieval over video corpora involves sequential stages—video retrieval, moment retrieval, subsegment segmentation, and stepwise captioning, as in HiREST (Zala et al., 2023).
• Graph Retrieval for Design Artifacts: In analog circuit retrieval, diagrams are recognized and parsed into multi-level graph representations, beginning with coarse device connectivity, with finer-grained refinement (e.g., device-pin level), and hierarchical search accelerates retrieval versus image-based methods (Gao et al., 5 Feb 2025).
• E-commerce: Product catalogs with hierarchical field structure (Brand, Category, Title, Description) are encoded with block-triangular attention masks, enabling field-sensitive matching and explainability (Freymuth et al., 30 Jan 2025).
• Explainable Recommendation: HR is used for review aggregation in recommender systems, where user/item aggregation via multi-layer LLM summarization is combined with dual retrieval queries: latent representation and profile-based selection (Sun et al., 12 Jul 2025).

6. Limitations, Open Problems, and Theoretical Results

Despite their success, HR methods face unique challenges:

• Geometry Constraints: Symmetric spaces (Euclidean) are fundamentally limited for encoding asymmetric hierarchical relations. For dual encoders (DEs), the hierarchical matching property is feasible only if the embedding dimension $d$ is linear in the depth and logarithmic in the document count:

$$d = O\left(\max\left\{s \log m, \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\log m\right\}\right)$$

where $s$ is maximum relevant nodes per query (You et al., 19 Sep 2025).

• Lost-in-the-Long-Distance: Empirical studies document a sharp drop in recall for distant (ancestor) matches in DEs. The pretrain-finetune recipe—where fine-tuning is performed on “long-distance” pairs at reduced learning rates and high softmax temperature—substantially mitigates this, boosting long-range recall from 19% to 76% in WordNet HR (You et al., 19 Sep 2025).
• Error Sensitivity in Structure: Order and sampling errors when reconstructing trees (e.g., due to node addition order) decrease structural fidelity as quantified by coincidence similarity. The effect is most severe when error probability is low, suggesting sensitivity of HR systems to subtle corruption of order (Benatti et al., 2022).
• Trade-offs in Efficiency and Fidelity: Multi-stage HR (e.g., initial retrieval on coarse units, rerank/refine on fine) balances speed and accuracy but may introduce complexity at integration boundaries.
• Explainability: While HR systems (HyPE) can generate stepwise explanations via hierarchical reasoning paths, designing universally interpretable and query-relevant explanations across domains remains open (Lee et al., 8 Nov 2024).
• Evaluation on Dense/Evidence-Rich Corpora: Benchmarks such as HiCBench show that HR chunking gains are most manifest in evidence-dense QA, implying context and corpus structure influence the realized benefits (Lu et al., 15 Sep 2025).

7. Applications and Future Directions

HR frameworks continue to permeate new use cases:

• Open-domain Question Answering: HR raises both answer accuracy and retrieval efficiency by jointly leveraging document- and section-level cues (Liu et al., 2021, Singh et al., 4 Mar 2025).
• Enterprise Multi-Source Search: Enterprise systems that federate over private and public corpora via hierarchical agentic planning and reinforcement learning (Tan et al., 11 Aug 2025).
• Explainable Recommendation and Summarization: Recommender HR combines user/item hierarchy with retrieval-augmented generation for explainable output (Sun et al., 12 Jul 2025).
• Legal, Financial, and Scientific RAG: Hierarchical retrieval structures are critical in domains requiring comprehensive recall and explainability (Yu et al., 16 Jun 2025, Chucri et al., 2 Oct 2024, Zala et al., 2023).

Further research is likely to focus on adaptive thresholding, geometry-aware embedding, multimodal hierarchies, and robust HR in dynamic and multilingual settings, alongside new benchmarks that quantify both efficiency and retrieval quality in high-recall and evidence-dense applications.

---

Hierarchical Retrieval encompasses a spectrum of algorithmic paradigms and mathematical techniques, demonstrating clear empirical and theoretical advantages over flat retrieval for tasks that demand granular, compositional, or scalable information matching. The field advances through explicit multi-level modeling, efficiency-driven filtering and ranking techniques, and principled management of hierarchy-aware embedding spaces. Continued progress will likely derive from the integration of adaptive, explainable, and modality-agnostic HR components across real-world data-intensive systems.