Rethinking Reasoning in Document Ranking: Why Chain-of-Thought Falls Short

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08985v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 03:59:17 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Reasoning in Document Ranking: Why Chain-of-Thought Falls Short
• Authors: Xuan Lu, Haohang Huang, Rui Meng, Yaohui Jin, Wenjun Zeng, Xiaoyu Shen,
• Abstract summary: Document reranking is a key component in information retrieval (IR)<n>We present the first systematic study of reasoning in reranking across both pointwise and listwise settings.
• Score: 36.93384080571354
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Document reranking is a key component in information retrieval (IR), aimed at refining initial retrieval results to improve ranking quality for downstream tasks. Recent studies--motivated by large reasoning models (LRMs)--have begun incorporating explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning into LLM-based rerankers. However, the effectiveness of such reasoning for ranking tasks remains underexplored. In this work, we present the first systematic study of reasoning in reranking across both pointwise and listwise settings, under both supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. Using diverse benchmarks, including reasoning-intensive datasets (BRIGHT) and standard IR benchmarks (BEIR), we find that reasoning-augmented rerankers consistently underperform their direct counterparts that predict rankings without CoT, despite substantially higher inference costs. Our analysis reveals three core limitations: (i) in pointwise rerankers, reasoning breaks calibration and biases models toward the positive class, raising TPR but lowering TNR, which inflates false positives and degrades ranking in negative-dominant pools; (ii) in listwise rerankers, reasoning improves in-domain fit but increases variance and fails to generalize out-of-domain, even when reinforcement learning shortens rationales; and (iii) overall, directly fine-tuned rerankers remain more stable, effective, and robust. These findings challenge the assumption that explicit reasoning is universally beneficial for reranking. We conclude by highlighting future directions, including calibration-aware scoring for pointwise rerankers and the design of concise, targeted reasoning strategies to mitigate overfitting and overthinking in listwise rerankers.

Related papers

• Observationally Informed Adaptive Causal Experimental Design [55.998153710215654]
  We propose Active Residual Learning, a new paradigm that leverages the observational model as a foundational prior.<n>This approach shifts the experimental focus from learning target causal quantities from scratch to efficiently estimating the residuals required to correct observational bias.<n> Experiments on synthetic and semi-synthetic benchmarks demonstrate that R-Design significantly outperforms baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T06:52:37Z)
• Constraint-Rectified Training for Efficient Chain-of-Thought [60.52883907721588]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has significantly enhanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>While longer reasoning traces can improve answer quality and unlock abilities such as self-correction, they also incur high inference costs and often introduce redundant steps, known as overthinking.<n>Recent research seeks to develop efficient reasoning strategies that balance reasoning length and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T02:13:45Z)
• APR: Penalizing Structural Redundancy in Large Reasoning Models via Anchor-based Process Rewards [61.52322047892064]
  Test-Time Scaling (TTS) has significantly enhanced the capabilities of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs)<n>We observe that LRMs frequently conduct repetitive self-verification without revision even after obtaining the final answer during the reasoning process.<n>We propose Anchor-based Process Reward (APR), a structure-aware reward shaping method that localizes the reasoning anchor and penalizes exclusively the post-anchor AST.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T14:53:20Z)
• Ranking-aware Reinforcement Learning for Ordinal Ranking [19.678002354790582]
  We propose Ranking-Aware Reinforcement Learning (RARL), a novel RL framework that explicitly learns these relationships.<n>RARL features a unified objective that integrates regression and Learning-to-Rank (L2R), enabling mutual improvement between the two tasks.<n>To further enhance training, we introduce Response Mutation Operations (RMO), which inject controlled noise to improve exploration and prevent stagnation at saddle points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T13:22:42Z)
• Save the Good Prefix: Precise Error Penalization via Process-Supervised RL to Enhance LLM Reasoning [59.76691952347156]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful framework for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Most existing RL approaches rely on sparse outcome rewards, which fail to credit correct intermediate steps in partially successful solutions.<n>We propose Verifiable Prefix Policy Optimization (VPPO), which uses PRMs only to localize the first error during RL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T21:38:20Z)
• In-Token Rationality Optimization: Towards Accurate and Concise LLM Reasoning via Self-Feedback [38.915062716409686]
  InTRO is a new framework that enables both token-level exploration and self-feedback for accurate and concise reasoning.<n>InTRO consistently outperforms other baselines, raising solution accuracy by up to 20% relative to the base model.<n>Its chains of thought are notably more concise, exhibiting reduced verbosity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T01:47:06Z)
• Conditional Advantage Estimation for Reinforcement Learning in Large Reasoning Models [50.84995206660551]
  We introduce Conditional advANtage estimatiON (CANON) to amplify the impact of a target metric without presuming its direction.<n>CANON based on entropy consistently outperforms prior methods on both math reasoning and high-complexity logic tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T16:33:07Z)
• Stop Spinning Wheels: Mitigating LLM Overthinking via Mining Patterns for Early Reasoning Exit [114.83867400179354]
  Overthinking can degrade overall performance of large language models.<n>We categorize reasoning into three stages: insufficient exploration stage, compensatory reasoning stage, and reasoning convergence stage.<n>We develop a lightweight thresholding strategy based on rules to improve reasoning accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T03:17:17Z)
• Lost at the Beginning of Reasoning [82.18834329384514]
  We show that the first reasoning step exerts a disproportionately large influence on the final prediction.<n>We propose an efficient sampling strategy that leverages a reward model to identify and retain high-quality first reasoning steps.<n>We introduce a new benchmark specifically constructed with deliberately flawed first reasoning steps to systematically evaluate model self-correction capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T09:53:57Z)
• Don't "Overthink" Passage Reranking: Is Reasoning Truly Necessary? [60.725923225442095]
  We compare reasoning-based pointwise rerankers (ReasonRR) to standard, non-reasoning pointwise rerankers (StandardRR) under identical training conditions.<n>We find that ReasonRR-NoReason is surprisingly more effective than ReasonRR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T16:41:37Z)
• R-TOFU: Unlearning in Large Reasoning Models [5.116399056871577]
  We introduce Reasoning-TOFU, the first benchmark tailored to this setting.<n>R-TOFU augments existing unlearning tasks with realistic CoT annotations.<n>We propose Reasoned IDK, a preference-optimization variant that preserves coherent yet inconclusive reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T07:44:30Z)
• REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate Representations [47.36251998678097]
  We introduce REFINER, a framework for finetuning language models to generate intermediate inferences. REFINER works by interacting with a critic model that provides automated feedback on the reasoning. Empirical evaluations show significant improvements over baseline LMs of comparable scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T15:57:28Z)

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.