Adaptive Repetition for Mitigating Position Bias in LLM-Based Ranking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17788v1
• Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 09:54:44 GMT
• Title: Adaptive Repetition for Mitigating Position Bias in LLM-Based Ranking
• Abstract summary: Order of candidate items can influence the model's final decision.<n>This sensitivity to item positioning in a LLM's prompt is known as position bias.<n>We introduce a dynamic early-stopping method that adaptively determines the number of repetitions required for each instance.
• Score: 12.134014941104613
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: When using LLMs to rank items based on given criteria, or evaluate answers, the order of candidate items can influence the model's final decision. This sensitivity to item positioning in a LLM's prompt is known as position bias. Prior research shows that this bias exists even in large models, though its severity varies across models and tasks. In addition to position bias, LLMs also exhibit varying degrees of low repetition consistency, where repeating the LLM call with the same candidate ordering can lead to different rankings. To address both inconsistencies, a common approach is to prompt the model multiple times with different candidate orderings and aggregate the results via majority voting. However, this repetition strategy, significantly increases computational costs. Extending prior findings, we observe that both the direction -- favoring either the earlier or later candidate in the prompt -- and magnitude of position bias across instances vary substantially, even within a single dataset. This observation highlights the need for a per-instance mitigation strategy. To this end, we introduce a dynamic early-stopping method that adaptively determines the number of repetitions required for each instance. Evaluating our approach across three LLMs of varying sizes and on two tasks, namely re-ranking and alignment, we demonstrate that transitioning to a dynamic repetition strategy reduces the number of LLM calls by an average of 81%, while preserving the accuracy. Furthermore, we propose a confidence-based adaptation to our early-stopping method, reducing LLM calls by an average of 87% compared to static repetition, with only a slight accuracy trade-off relative to our original early-stopping method.

Related papers

• Mitigating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge via Random Number Generation [7.525640980821714]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality.<n>LLMs tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text.<n>This study proposes a novel method to mitigate this scoring bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T08:09:42Z)
• Diagnosing LLM Reranker Behavior Under Fixed Evidence Pools [0.17188280334580197]
  Reranking evaluations study how a reranker orders candidates returned by an upstream retriever.<n>This setup couples ranking behavior with retrieval quality, so differences in output cannot be attributed to the ranking policy alone.<n>We introduce a controlled diagnostic that isolates reranking by using Multi-News clusters as fixed evidence pools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T21:07:32Z)
• ABCD: All Biases Come Disguised [4.603755953026689]
  Multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks have been a standard evaluation practice.<n>We propose a simple bias-reduced evaluation protocol that replaces the labels of each question with uniform, unordered labels.<n>We show that this protocol substantially improves the robustness to answer permutations, reducing mean accuracy variance $3times$ with only a minimal decrease in the mean model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T15:12:33Z)
• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• Am I More Pointwise or Pairwise? Revealing Position Bias in Rubric-Based LLM-as-a-Judge [17.255487260595565]
  We show that rubric-based evaluation implicitly resembles a multi-choice setting and therefore has position bias.<n>We propose a balanced permutation strategy that evenly distributes each score option across positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T15:24:37Z)
• Scoring, Reasoning, and Selecting the Best! Ensembling Large Language Models via a Peer-Review Process [58.265053900416895]
  LLM-PeerReview is built on a novel, peer-review-inspired framework.<n>It operates in three stages: For scoring, we use the emerging LLM-as-a-Judge technique.<n>For reasoning, we can apply a graphical model-based truth inference algorithm.<n>Finally, the highest-scoring response is selected as the best ensemble output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T05:25:49Z)
• Quantifying and Mitigating Selection Bias in LLMs: A Transferable LoRA Fine-Tuning and Efficient Majority Voting Approach [13.829059542429876]
  Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) answering is a widely used method for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>LLMs often exhibit selection bias in MCQ tasks, where their choices are influenced by factors like answer position or option symbols rather than the content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T21:31:37Z)
• Self-Calibrated Listwise Reranking with Large Language Models [137.6557607279876]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been employed in reranking tasks through a sequence-to-sequence approach. This reranking paradigm requires a sliding window strategy to iteratively handle larger candidate sets. We propose a novel self-calibrated listwise reranking method, which aims to leverage LLMs to produce global relevance scores for ranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T10:31:31Z)
• Dynamic Uncertainty Ranking: Enhancing Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning for Long-Tail Knowledge in LLMs [50.29035873837]
  Large language models (LLMs) can learn vast amounts of knowledge from diverse domains during pre-training.<n>Long-tail knowledge from specialized domains is often scarce and underrepresented, rarely appearing in the models' memorization.<n>We propose a reinforcement learning-based dynamic uncertainty ranking method for ICL that accounts for the varying impact of each retrieved sample on LLM predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T03:42:17Z)
• SkillAggregation: Reference-free LLM-Dependent Aggregation [14.46141987797362]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess NLP tasks. Recent work suggests using multiple LLMs as judges yields improved performance. This work focuses on aggregating predictions from multiple systems where no reference labels are available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T07:13:47Z)
• Post-hoc Reward Calibration: A Case Study on Length Bias [28.266675778940133]
  Reward models (RMs) can develop biases by exploiting spurious correlations in their training data. These biases can lead to incorrect output rankings, sub-optimal model evaluations, and the amplification of undesirable behaviours. This paper addresses the challenge of correcting such biases without additional data and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T22:30:42Z)
• The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism [39.392450788666814]
  Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often overlook non-determinism. greedy decoding generally outperforms sampling methods for most evaluated tasks. Smaller LLMs can match or surpass larger models such as GPT-4-Turbo.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T06:12:17Z)
• Regression-aware Inference with LLMs [52.764328080398805]
  We show that an inference strategy can be sub-optimal for common regression and scoring evaluation metrics. We propose alternate inference strategies that estimate the Bayes-optimal solution for regression and scoring metrics in closed-form from sampled responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T03:24:34Z)
• PiCO: Peer Review in LLMs based on the Consistency Optimization [48.48819141999387]
  We use peer-review mechanisms to measure large language models (LLMs) automatically.<n>We formalize it as a constrained optimization problem, intending to maximize the consistency of each LLM's capabilities and scores.<n>We propose three metrics called PEN, CIN, and LIS to evaluate the gap in aligning human rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T18:49:26Z)
• Self-Supervised Position Debiasing for Large Language Models [39.261233221850155]
  We propose a self-supervised position debiasing (SOD) framework to mitigate position bias for large language models (LLMs) Experiments on eight datasets and five tasks show that SOD consistently outperforms existing methods in mitigating three types of position biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T14:12:41Z)
• Found in the Middle: Permutation Self-Consistency Improves Listwise Ranking in Large Language Models [63.714662435555674]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit positional bias in how they use context. We propose permutation self-consistency, a form of self-consistency over ranking list outputs of black-box LLMs. Our approach improves scores from conventional inference by up to 7-18% for GPT-3.5 and 8-16% for LLaMA v2 (70B)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T17:59:02Z)
• LoRA ensembles for large language model fine-tuning [35.78186948630364]
  Low-Rank Adapters (LoRA) is a parameter-efficient fine-tuning technique. LoRA represents a very small number of parameters, orders of magnitude less than the underlying pre-trained model. We find that LoRA ensembles, applied on its own or on top of pre-existing regularization techniques, gives consistent improvements in predictive accuracy and uncertainty quantification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T16:38:38Z)
• Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors [117.72712117510953]
  Multiple choice questions (MCQs) serve as a common yet important task format in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) This work shows that modern LLMs are vulnerable to option position changes due to their inherent "selection bias" We propose a label-free, inference-time debiasing method, called PriDe, which separates the model's prior bias for option IDs from the overall prediction distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T17:44:56Z)
• Let's Sample Step by Step: Adaptive-Consistency for Efficient Reasoning and Coding with LLMs [60.58434523646137]
  A popular approach for improving the correctness of output from large language models (LLMs) is Self-Consistency. We introduce Adaptive-Consistency, a cost-efficient, model-agnostic technique that dynamically adjusts the number of samples per question. Our experiments show that Adaptive-Consistency reduces sample budget by up to 7.9 times with an average accuracy drop of less than 0.1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T17:49:25Z)

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.