Diagnosing LLM Reranker Behavior Under Fixed Evidence Pools

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.18613v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 21:07:32 GMT
• Title: Diagnosing LLM Reranker Behavior Under Fixed Evidence Pools
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.17188280334580197
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Standard reranking evaluations study how a reranker orders candidates returned by an upstream retriever. This setup couples ranking behavior with retrieval quality, so differences in output cannot be attributed to the ranking policy alone. We introduce a controlled diagnostic that isolates reranking by using Multi-News clusters as fixed evidence pools. We limit each pool to exactly eight documents and pass identical inputs to all rankers. Within this setup, BM25 and MMR serve as interpretable reference points for lexical matching and diversity optimization. Across 345 clusters, we find that redundancy patterns vary by model: one LLM implicitly diversifies at larger selection budgets, while another increases redundancy. In contrast, LLMs underperform on lexical coverage at small selection budgets. As a result, LLM rankings diverge substantially from both baselines rather than consistently approximating either strategy. By eliminating retrieval variance, we can attribute these differences directly to the ranking policy. This diagnostic is model-agnostic and applicable to any ranker, including open source systems and proprietary APIs.

Related papers

• When Agents Disagree: Bayesian Backward Reasoning as a Label-Free Anchor for Multi-Agent Collective Decision-Making [5.335515762403034]
  LLM judges, voting rules, and electoral rules rely on forward reasoning to map evidence to labels in one direction.<n>We construct a reverse posterior for each instance through Bayesian backward reasoning from an explicit likelihood.<n>Because estimates from different factorizations may tend to share the same error less often, we use Jensen-Shannon divergence to rank agents by cross-path consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T15:27:58Z)
• LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Framework [74.40111651545979]
  We introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework.<n>It provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T17:59:35Z)
• Zero-Shot Active Feature Acquisition via LLM-Elicitation [33.792645413345845]
  Large language models (LLMs) supply unsupervised domain knowledge, but are poor sequential planners.<n>We develop a framework for zero-shot AFA through disciplined elicitation.<n>We apply our framework to two settings: binary classification and top-$k$ identification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T11:15:38Z)
• DISA: Offline Importance Sampling for Distribution-Matching LLM-RL [56.9445657766829]
  We introduce DISA, which moves this calibration problem outside the RL loop.<n> DISA draws proposal trajectories offline, estimates the partition function via importance sampling, and freezes the resulting partition-function estimate.<n>On two open-weight backbones across six math and three code benchmarks, DISA matches or exceeds the online-coupled distribution-matching baseline Flow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T07:14:44Z)
• F-GRPO: Factorized Group-Relative Policy Optimization for Unified Candidate Generation and Ranking [79.49893545611779]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate a subset and order it within a single autoregressive pass.<n>This flexibility introduces a new optimization challenge: the model must search an output space while receiving utility feedback only after the full ranked list is generated.<n>This credit assignment gap makes end-to-end optimization unstable and sample-inefficient.<n>We propose a unified framework that performs both within a single autoregressive rollout and optimize them end-to-end via factorized group-relative policy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T04:52:33Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Majority Voting: LLM Aggregation by Leveraging Higher-Order Information [57.397381631496906]
  We develop two new aggregation algorithms called Optimal Weight (OW) and Inverse Surprising Popularity (ISP)<n>Our theoretical analysis shows these methods provably mitigate inherent limitations of majority voting under mild assumptions.<n>We empirically validate our algorithms on synthetic datasets, popular LLM fine-tuning benchmarks such as UltraFeedback and MMLU, and a real-world healthcare setting ARMMAN.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T22:21:50Z)
• GRAPE: Let GPRO Supervise Query Rewriting by Ranking for Retrieval [19.73916326078242]
  The CLIP model has become a cornerstone of large-scale retrieval systems by aligning text and image data in a unified embedding space.<n>To avoid costly retraining, existing methods mainly adopt query-rewriting strategies with large language models (LLMs)<n>We address this challenge with GRAPE, a plug-and-play enhancement approach that incorporates ranking signals into retrieval-guided query rewriting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T15:36:59Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• Adaptive Repetition for Mitigating Position Bias in LLM-Based Ranking [12.134014941104613]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T09:54:44Z)
• Self-ensemble: Mitigating Confidence Mis-calibration for Large Language Models [67.62810111789338]
  Large Language Models exhibit a confidence distortion problem on multi-choice question-answering.<n>We propose Self-ensemble to solve this problem.<n> Experimental results on three LLMs and datasets demonstrate that Self-ensemble comprehensively addresses the confidence distortion problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T17:59:29Z)
• Towards Automated Fact-Checking of Real-World Claims: Exploring Task Formulation and Assessment with LLMs [32.45604456988931]
  This study establishes baseline comparisons for Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) using Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate Llama-3 models of varying sizes on 17,856 claims collected from PolitiFact (2007-2024) using evidence retrieved via restricted web searches.<n>Our results show that larger LLMs consistently outperform smaller LLMs in classification accuracy and justification quality without fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T02:51:17Z)
• Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge [69.96778498636071]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods.<n>In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:13:03Z)
• From Distributional to Overton Pluralism: Investigating Large Language Model Alignment [82.99849359892112]
  We re-examine previously reported reductions in response diversity post-alignment.<n>Our analysis suggests that an apparent drop in the diversity of responses is largely explained by quality control and information aggregation.<n>Findings indicate that current alignment techniques capture but do not extend the useful subset of assistant-like base LLM behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:32:33Z)
• DARG: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Language Models via Adaptive Reasoning Graph [70.79413606968814]
  We introduce Dynamic Evaluation of LLMs via Adaptive Reasoning Graph Evolvement (DARG) to dynamically extend current benchmarks with controlled complexity and diversity. Specifically, we first extract the reasoning graphs of data points in current benchmarks and then perturb the reasoning graphs to generate novel testing data. Such newly generated test samples can have different levels of complexity while maintaining linguistic diversity similar to the original benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T04:27:53Z)
• LLM-RankFusion: Mitigating Intrinsic Inconsistency in LLM-based Ranking [17.96316956366718]
  Ranking passages by prompting a large language model (LLM) can achieve promising performance in modern information retrieval (IR) systems. We show that sorting-based methods require consistent comparisons to correctly sort the passages, which we show that LLMs often violate. We propose LLM-RankFusion, an LLM-based ranking framework that mitigates these inconsistencies and produces a robust ranking list.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T23:29:42Z)
• 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)

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.