What Tracks Hard-Negative Transfer? A Study of Lexical and Semantic Signals

arXiv:2603.20990v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Which properties of hard-negative supervision track dense-retriever transfer before training? We compare lexical noncoverage, frozenencoder similarity statistics, hardness proxies, and combinations of these signals across BM25, dense, LLM-generated, and hybrid sources for MS MARCO training. Evaluation uses three retriever backbones and eleven BEIR datasets. Mean lexical residuality, an IDF-weighted measure of query-token noncoverage, reproduces the aggregate transfer ordering in all six backbone and setting blocks. The individual semantic statistics recover none of the complete orderings, and combining them with the lexical signal does not improve the observed rank agreement. After approximately matching BM25, dense, and LLM diagnostic samples for lexical residuality, none of the tested semantic statistics recovers the observed LLM > Dense > BM25 transfer ordering across three backbones, three matching resolutions, and 100 repetitions. Constructed controls further show that unrelated and false-negative-shaped passages can exhibit favorable lexical and semantic statistics. The findings identify a simple lexical association in this setting while distinguishing source level transfer agreement from the reliability of individual negatives.