The Ranking Blind Spot: Decision Hijacking in LLM-based Text Ranking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18575v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 02:56:38 GMT
• Title: The Ranking Blind Spot: Decision Hijacking in LLM-based Text Ranking
• Authors: Yaoyao Qian, Yifan Zeng, Yuchao Jiang, Chelsi Jain, Huazheng Wang,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in information retrieval tasks like passage ranking.<n>This research examines how instruction-following capabilities in LLMs interact with multi-document comparison tasks.<n>We analyze how this ranking blind spot affects LLM evaluation systems through two approaches.
• Score: 17.328293277532
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in information retrieval tasks like passage ranking. Our research examines how instruction-following capabilities in LLMs interact with multi-document comparison tasks, identifying what we term the "Ranking Blind Spot", a characteristic of LLM decision processes during comparative evaluation. We analyze how this ranking blind spot affects LLM evaluation systems through two approaches: Decision Objective Hijacking, which alters the evaluation goal in pairwise ranking systems, and Decision Criteria Hijacking, which modifies relevance standards across ranking schemes. These approaches demonstrate how content providers could potentially influence LLM-based ranking systems to affect document positioning. These attacks aim to force the LLM ranker to prefer a specific passage and rank it at the top. Malicious content providers can exploit this weakness, which helps them gain additional exposure by attacking the ranker. In our experiment, We empirically show that the proposed attacks are effective in various LLMs and can be generalized to multiple ranking schemes. We apply these attack to realistic examples to show their effectiveness. We also found stronger LLMs are more vulnerable to these attacks. Our code is available at: https://github.com/blindspotorg/RankingBlindSpot

Related papers

• Supervised Fine-Tuning or Contrastive Learning? Towards Better Multimodal LLM Reranking [56.46309219272326]
  For large language models (LLMs), classification via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) predicts ''yes'' (resp. ''no'') token for relevant (resp. irrelevant) pairs.<n>This divergence raises a central question: which objective is intrinsically better suited to LLM-based reranking, and what mechanism underlies the difference?<n>We conduct a comprehensive comparison and analysis between CL and SFT for reranking, taking the universal multimodal retrieval (UMR) as the experimental playground.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T16:02:27Z)
• StealthRank: LLM Ranking Manipulation via Stealthy Prompt Optimization [16.031545357388357]
  We present a novel adversarial attack method that manipulates large language models (LLMs)-driven ranking systems.<n>StealthRank employs an energy-based optimization framework combined with Langevin dynamics to generate StealthRank Prompts.<n>Our results show that StealthRank consistently outperforms state-of-the-art adversarial ranking baselines in both effectiveness and stealth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T08:36:18Z)
• Rankers, Judges, and Assistants: Towards Understanding the Interplay of LLMs in Information Retrieval Evaluation [44.58099275559231]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integral to information retrieval (IR), powering ranking, evaluation, and AI-assisted content creation.<n>This paper synthesizes existing research and presents novel experiment designs that explore how LLM-based rankers and assistants influence LLM-based judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T19:24:40Z)
• Style Outweighs Substance: Failure Modes of LLM Judges in Alignment Benchmarking [56.275521022148794]
  Post-training methods claim superior alignment by virtue of better correspondence with human pairwise preferences.<n>We attempt to answer the question -- do LLM-judge preferences translate to progress on other, more concrete metrics for alignment, and if not, why not?<n>We find that (1) LLM-judge preferences do not correlate with concrete measures of safety, world knowledge, and instruction following; (2) LLM-judges have powerful implicit biases, prioritizing style over factuality and safety; and (3) the supervised fine-tuning stage of post-training, and not the PO stage, has the greatest impact on alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T17:58:07Z)
• Are Large Language Models Strategic Decision Makers? A Study of Performance and Bias in Two-Player Non-Zero-Sum Games [56.70628673595041]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used in real-world settings, yet their strategic decision-making abilities remain largely unexplored. This work investigates the performance and merits of LLMs in canonical game-theoretic two-player non-zero-sum games, Stag Hunt and Prisoner Dilemma. Our structured evaluation of GPT-3.5, GPT-4-Turbo, GPT-4o, and Llama-3-8B shows that these models, when making decisions in these games, are affected by at least one of the following systematic biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T12:30:02Z)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• Towards Efficient LLM Grounding for Embodied Multi-Agent Collaboration [68.29746557968107]
  We propose a novel framework for multi-agent collaboration that introduces Reinforced Advantage feedback (ReAd) for efficient self-refinement of plans.<n> Experiments on Over-AI and a difficult variant of RoCoBench show that ReAd surpasses baselines in success rate, and also significantly decreases the interaction steps of agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T08:33:19Z)
• Do Large Language Models Rank Fairly? An Empirical Study on the Fairness of LLMs as Rankers [27.66626125248612]
  This paper presents an empirical study evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset. We focus on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T04:23:19Z)
• LiPO: Listwise Preference Optimization through Learning-to-Rank [62.02782819559389]
  Policy can learn more effectively from a ranked list of plausible responses given the prompt.<n>We show that LiPO-$lambda$ can outperform DPO variants and SLiC by a clear margin on several preference alignment tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T20:08:10Z)
• 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)
• Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well? [91.26543768665778]
  This study investigates the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T08:01:23Z)

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.