Benchmarking the Myopic Trap: Positional Bias in Information Retrieval

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13950v1
• Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 05:29:01 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking the Myopic Trap: Positional Bias in Information Retrieval
• Authors: Ziyang Zeng, Dun Zhang, Jiacheng Li, Panxiang Zou, Yuqing Yang,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates a specific form of positional bias, termed the Myopic Trap, where retrieval models disproportionately attend to the early parts of documents while overlooking relevant information that appears later.<n>To systematically quantify this phenomenon, we propose a semantics-preserving evaluation framework that repurposes the existing NLP datasets into position-aware benchmarks.
• Score: 10.558261017416472
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This study investigates a specific form of positional bias, termed the Myopic Trap, where retrieval models disproportionately attend to the early parts of documents while overlooking relevant information that appears later. To systematically quantify this phenomenon, we propose a semantics-preserving evaluation framework that repurposes the existing NLP datasets into position-aware retrieval benchmarks. By evaluating the SOTA models of full retrieval pipeline, including BM25, embedding models, ColBERT-style late-interaction models, and reranker models, we offer a broader empirical perspective on positional bias than prior work. Experimental results show that embedding models and ColBERT-style models exhibit significant performance degradation when query-related content is shifted toward later positions, indicating a pronounced head bias. Notably, under the same training configuration, ColBERT-style approach show greater potential for mitigating positional bias compared to the traditional single-vector approach. In contrast, BM25 and reranker models remain largely unaffected by such perturbations, underscoring their robustness to positional bias. Code and data are publicly available at: www.github.com/NovaSearch-Team/RAG-Retrieval.

Related papers

• Unidentified and Confounded? Understanding Two-Tower Models for Unbiased Learning to Rank [50.9530591265324]
  Training two-tower models on clicks collected by well-performing production systems leads to decreased ranking performance.<n>We theoretically analyze the identifiability conditions of two-tower models, showing that either document swaps across positions or overlapping feature distributions are required to recover model parameters from clicks.<n>We also investigate the effect of logging policies on two-tower models, finding that they introduce no bias when models perfectly capture user behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T14:47:43Z)
• Detecting Prefix Bias in LLM-based Reward Models [4.596249232904721]
  We introduce novel methods to detect and evaluate prefix bias in reward models trained on preference datasets.<n>We leverage these metrics to reveal significant biases in preference models across racial and gender dimensions.<n>Our findings highlight the critical need for bias-aware dataset design and evaluation in developing fair and reliable reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T21:50:03Z)
• On Large-scale Evaluation of Embedding Models for Knowledge Graph Completion [1.2703808802607108]
  Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models are extensively studied for knowledge graph completion.<n>Standard evaluation metrics rely on the closed-world assumption, which penalizes models for correctly predicting missing triples.<n>This paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation of four representative KGE models on large-scale datasets FB-CVT-REV and FB+CVT-REV.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T20:49:02Z)
• Rethinking Relation Extraction: Beyond Shortcuts to Generalization with a Debiased Benchmark [53.876493664396506]
  Benchmarks are crucial for evaluating machine learning algorithm performance, facilitating comparison and identifying superior solutions.<n>This paper addresses the issue of entity bias in relation extraction tasks, where models tend to rely on entity mentions rather than context.<n>We propose a debiased relation extraction benchmark DREB that breaks the pseudo-correlation between entity mentions and relation types through entity replacement.<n>To establish a new baseline on DREB, we introduce MixDebias, a debiasing method combining data-level and model training-level techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T17:01:06Z)
• Eliminating Position Bias of Language Models: A Mechanistic Approach [119.34143323054143]
  Position bias has proven to be a prevalent issue of modern language models (LMs)<n>Our mechanistic analysis attributes the position bias to two components employed in nearly all state-of-the-art LMs: causal attention and relative positional encodings.<n>By eliminating position bias, models achieve better performance and reliability in downstream tasks, including LM-as-a-judge, retrieval-augmented QA, molecule generation, and math reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T09:06:57Z)
• Revisiting Zero-Shot Abstractive Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models from the Perspective of Position Bias [13.828653029379257]
  We characterize and study zero-shot abstractive summarization in Large Language Models (LLMs) by measuring position bias. Position bias captures the tendency of a model unfairly prioritizing information from certain parts of the input text over others, leading to undesirable behavior. Our findings lead to novel insights and discussion on performance and position bias of models for zero-shot summarization tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-03T21:38:40Z)
• MRCLens: an MRC Dataset Bias Detection Toolkit [82.44296974850639]
  We introduce MRCLens, a toolkit that detects whether biases exist before users train the full model. For the convenience of introducing the toolkit, we also provide a categorization of common biases in MRC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-18T21:05:39Z)
• General Greedy De-bias Learning [163.65789778416172]
  We propose a General Greedy De-bias learning framework (GGD), which greedily trains the biased models and the base model like gradient descent in functional space. GGD can learn a more robust base model under the settings of both task-specific biased models with prior knowledge and self-ensemble biased model without prior knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-20T14:47:32Z)
• Greedy Gradient Ensemble for Robust Visual Question Answering [163.65789778416172]
  We stress the language bias in Visual Question Answering (VQA) that comes from two aspects, i.e., distribution bias and shortcut bias. We propose a new de-bias framework, Greedy Gradient Ensemble (GGE), which combines multiple biased models for unbiased base model learning. GGE forces the biased models to over-fit the biased data distribution in priority, thus makes the base model pay more attention to examples that are hard to solve by biased models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-27T08:02:49Z)
• Mitigating the Position Bias of Transformer Models in Passage Re-Ranking [12.526786110360622]
  Supervised machine learning models and their evaluation strongly depends on the quality of the underlying dataset. We observe a bias in the position of the correct answer in the text in two popular Question Answering datasets used for passage re-ranking. We demonstrate that by mitigating the position bias, Transformer-based re-ranking models are equally effective on a biased and debiased dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T10:38:03Z)
• Towards Robustifying NLI Models Against Lexical Dataset Biases [94.79704960296108]
  This paper explores both data-level and model-level debiasing methods to robustify models against lexical dataset biases. First, we debias the dataset through data augmentation and enhancement, but show that the model bias cannot be fully removed via this method. The second approach employs a bag-of-words sub-model to capture the features that are likely to exploit the bias and prevents the original model from learning these biased features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-10T17:56:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.