arxiv: 2511.11653 · v3 · submitted 2025-11-10 · 💻 cs.IR · cs.AI· cs.LG

GroupRank: A Groupwise Paradigm for Effective and Efficient Passage Reranking with LLMs

Meixiu Long , Duolin Sun , Dan Yang , Yihan Jiao , Lei Liu , Jiahai Wang , BinBin Hu , Yue Shen

show 7 more authors

Jie Feng Zhehao Tan Junjie Wang Lianzhen Zhong Jian Wang Peng Wei Jinjie Gu

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 23:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR cs.AIcs.LG

keywords passage rerankinglarge language modelsgroupwise paradigminformation retrievalreinforcement learningdata synthesisNDCG

0 comments

The pith

GroupRank proposes a groupwise reranking method for LLMs that fuses pointwise and listwise signals to achieve higher accuracy and faster inference in passage retrieval.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper seeks to overcome the trade-off between efficiency and accuracy in LLM-based passage reranking. Pointwise methods are fast but miss comparisons between documents, while listwise methods consider global context but are slow and limited by context windows. GroupRank processes documents in groups and uses an answer-free synthesis to create training data that combines local and global relevance signals. It then applies supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning guided by a reward that rewards both accurate ranking utility and alignment within groups. A sympathetic reader would care because this could make sophisticated reranking feasible for large-scale search systems with complex queries.

Core claim

GroupRank is a groupwise paradigm that processes passages in manageable groups to capture inter-document comparisons efficiently. It employs an answer-free data synthesis pipeline to fuse pointwise signals with listwise rankings for creating training samples. These are used for supervised fine-tuning and then reinforcement learning optimized by a group-ranking reward with ranking-utility and group-alignment components. This synergy improves document ordering and score calibration, leading to superior performance on retrieval benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The group-ranking reward consisting of ranking-utility and group-alignment terms, which together optimize ordering and calibration in the groupwise setting.

If this is right

GroupRank achieves a state-of-the-art 65.2 NDCG@10 on the BRIGHT benchmark.
It surpasses baselines by 2.1 points on the R2MED dataset.
The method provides a 6.4 times inference speedup compared to previous approaches.
Document ordering and score calibration are optimized to better reflect query-document relevance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Applying groupwise processing could extend to other LLM tasks requiring comparison across multiple items, such as summarization or recommendation.
Scaling the group size might further improve performance if hardware allows larger contexts without latency penalties.
The synthesis pipeline could be adapted for other ranking problems where labeled data is scarce.
Production search engines might integrate this to handle more complex user queries with reasonable compute costs.

Load-bearing premise

The answer-free data synthesis pipeline successfully fuses pointwise and listwise signals into high-quality training data, and the group-ranking reward produces well-calibrated orderings without introducing bias or overfitting.

What would settle it

Running GroupRank on a held-out test set with queries that demand broad context and checking if the accuracy gains disappear while the speedup remains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11653 by BinBin Hu, Dan Yang, Duolin Sun, Jiahai Wang, Jian Wang, Jie Feng, Jinjie Gu, Junjie Wang, Lei Liu, Lianzhen Zhong, Meixiu Long, Peng Wei, Yihan Jiao, Yue Shen, Zhehao Tan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Workflow for High-Quality Training Data Generation. After filtering candidate documents via hybrid retrieval, we employ two parallel annotation methods: Pointwise (LLM-based individual scoring) and Listwise (LLM-based holistic ranking). Finally, we apply a weighted fusion to these two sets of annotations to generate highly reliable final scores and a ranked list. This output is ideal for training a GroupRa… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The two-stage training paradigm for the Group Wise Reranker is designed to combine the flexibility of pointwise methods with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for passage reranking in information retrieval, leveraging their superior reasoning capabilities to address the limitations of conventional models on complex queries. However, current LLM-based reranking paradigms are fundamentally constrained by an efficiency-accuracy trade-off: (1) pointwise methods are efficient but ignore inter-document comparison, yielding suboptimal accuracy; (2) listwise methods capture global context but suffer from context-window constraints and prohibitive inference latency. To address these issues, we propose GroupRank, a novel paradigm that balances flexibility and context awareness. To unlock the full potential of groupwise reranking, we propose an answer-free data synthesis pipeline that fuses local pointwise signals with global listwise rankings. These samples facilitate supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, with the latter guided by a specialized group-ranking reward comprising ranking-utility and group-alignment. These complementary components synergistically optimize document ordering and score calibration to reflect intrinsic query-document relevance. Experimental results show GroupRank achieves a state-of-the-art 65.2 NDCG@10 on BRIGHT and surpasses baselines by 2.1 points on R2MED, while delivering a 6.4$\times$ inference speedup.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

GroupRank gives a workable groupwise reranking setup that reports solid benchmark gains and a clear speedup, but the answer-free synthesis step is the part that still needs the most checking.

read the letter

Hi, the main point is that this paper puts forward a groupwise reranking approach for LLMs that sits between fast pointwise scoring and slow listwise processing. It builds training data through an answer-free synthesis that mixes local and global signals, then uses supervised fine-tuning plus RL with a reward that adds ranking utility to group alignment. That combination is what they claim lets the model produce better orderings and better calibrated scores without blowing up latency. The reported numbers are 65.2 NDCG@10 on BRIGHT, a 2.1-point lift on R2MED, and a 6.4 times inference speedup, which would matter for any system that reranks on complex queries. The paper does a clean job spelling out the efficiency-accuracy trade-off that current LLM rerankers face and then showing how grouping passages can capture some inter-document context without the full context-window cost. The synthesis pipeline and the two-part reward are the concrete new pieces; they give a way to create usable training data without needing answers and a way to optimize both ordering and calibration at the same time. The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test flags. The synthesis step is described at a high level, and it is not obvious how the fusion avoids simply passing through noise or bias from the original pointwise and listwise runs. Without detailed ablations that isolate the fusion quality or show how much the final gains depend on the reward weights, it is hard to be sure the improvements come from the groupwise paradigm itself rather than from how the data was built. The paper treats the reward weights as free parameters, which is reasonable but also means the results could shift with different tuning. This work is aimed at retrieval researchers and engineers who already use LLMs for reranking and are looking for practical speed-accuracy trade-offs on hard queries. A reader who cares about deployed systems would get value from the speedup claims and the overall framing. It is solid enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee who can examine the experimental controls and the synthesis details in full.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GroupRank, a novel groupwise paradigm for LLM-based passage reranking that aims to balance efficiency and accuracy. It introduces an answer-free data synthesis pipeline fusing pointwise and listwise signals to generate training data for supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, with the latter using a group-ranking reward that combines ranking-utility and group-alignment terms. The central empirical claims are state-of-the-art performance of 65.2 NDCG@10 on BRIGHT, a 2.1-point improvement over baselines on R2MED, and a 6.4× inference speedup.

Significance. If the results and ablations hold under detailed scrutiny, GroupRank could meaningfully advance practical LLM reranking in information retrieval by providing a scalable middle ground between pointwise efficiency and listwise context modeling. The emphasis on answer-free synthesis and a composite reward for ordering plus calibration is a constructive contribution to the efficiency-accuracy trade-off literature.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the reported benchmark numbers (65.2 NDCG@10 on BRIGHT, 2.1-point gain on R2MED) are presented without any accompanying experimental details, baselines, error bars, statistical significance tests, or ablation studies. This absence directly undermines evaluation of the central claim that the synthesis pipeline and group-ranking reward are responsible for the gains rather than data-construction artifacts.
[Method overview / data synthesis] Data synthesis pipeline (as described in the abstract and method overview): the fusion of pointwise and listwise signals is asserted to produce high-quality, unbiased training samples, yet no mechanism details, bias-mitigation steps, or isolating ablations are supplied. Because this pipeline is load-bearing for both the SFT and RL stages that produce the reported ordering improvements, the lack of verification leaves the attribution of the 6.4× speedup and accuracy gains insecure.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The speedup is written as 6.4$×$; this LaTeX fragment may not render cleanly in all formats and should be replaced by the Unicode × or proper math mode.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for recognizing the potential of GroupRank to advance practical LLM reranking. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address the concerns regarding experimental transparency and the data synthesis pipeline, while preserving the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported benchmark numbers (65.2 NDCG@10 on BRIGHT, 2.1-point gain on R2MED) are presented without any accompanying experimental details, baselines, error bars, statistical significance tests, or ablation studies. This absence directly undermines evaluation of the central claim that the synthesis pipeline and group-ranking reward are responsible for the gains rather than data-construction artifacts.

Authors: We agree that the abstract's brevity can limit immediate assessment of the claims. The full manuscript already contains the requested details in Sections 4 (experimental setup and baselines) and 5 (ablations, error bars, and results). To strengthen the abstract itself, we have revised it to include a concise reference to the evaluation protocol, the use of statistical significance testing, and the presence of ablations that isolate the contributions of the synthesis pipeline and group-ranking reward. We have additionally inserted paired statistical significance tests for the reported gains in the main results tables. revision: partial
Referee: [Method overview / data synthesis] Data synthesis pipeline (as described in the abstract and method overview): the fusion of pointwise and listwise signals is asserted to produce high-quality, unbiased training samples, yet no mechanism details, bias-mitigation steps, or isolating ablations are supplied. Because this pipeline is load-bearing for both the SFT and RL stages that produce the reported ordering improvements, the lack of verification leaves the attribution of the 6.4× speedup and accuracy gains insecure.

Authors: We acknowledge that additional explicit documentation of the pipeline would improve verifiability. In the revised manuscript we have expanded Section 3.2 with the precise fusion mechanism (including prompting templates, scoring aggregation rules, and sample selection criteria), a dedicated paragraph on bias mitigation (query diversification, relevance calibration, and duplicate filtering), and new isolating ablation experiments that separately quantify the contribution of the pointwise and listwise signals to both NDCG@10 and inference latency. These additions directly support attribution of the observed accuracy and speedup gains to the proposed components rather than artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: performance metrics presented as independent empirical outcomes

full rationale

The paper introduces GroupRank as a groupwise reranking paradigm, describes an answer-free data synthesis pipeline that fuses pointwise and listwise signals, applies supervised fine-tuning plus RL with a composite group-ranking reward, and reports benchmark results (65.2 NDCG@10 on BRIGHT, 2.1-point gain on R2MED, 6.4× speedup). These outcomes are framed as experimental measurements on external datasets rather than quantities obtained by fitting parameters inside the same equations or by self-citation chains that presuppose the target result. No load-bearing derivation step reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction, and the central claims rest on observable performance rather than definitional equivalence. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the precise free parameters, axioms, and invented entities cannot be enumerated. The method implicitly relies on standard assumptions about LLM reasoning capacity and the quality of synthesized training data.

free parameters (1)

group-ranking reward weights
The ranking-utility and group-alignment terms in the RL reward are likely scaled by tunable coefficients chosen during training.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5566 in / 1277 out tokens · 42497 ms · 2026-05-17T23:38:00.251455+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

LeanSearch v2: Global Premise Retrieval for Lean 4 Theorem Proving
cs.IR 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

LeanSearch v2 recovers 46.1% of ground-truth premise groups on research-level Mathlib theorems and raises fixed-loop proof success from 4% to 20% via embedding-reranker plus iterative sketch-retrieve-reflect retrieval.
LeanSearch v2: Global Premise Retrieval for Lean 4 Theorem Proving
cs.IR 2026-05 conditional novelty 7.0

LeanSearch v2 recovers 46.1% of ground-truth premise groups for research-level Lean 4 theorems within 10 candidates and raises fixed-loop proof success to 20%.
A Survey of Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval: Progress and Challenges
cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

A survey that categorizes RIR benchmarks by domain and modality, proposes a taxonomy for integrating reasoning into retrieval pipelines, and outlines key challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 13 internal anchors

[1]

Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey

Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, M. Wang, and H. Wang, “Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[2]

Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks

P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨uttler, M. Lewis, W. tau Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[3]

A survey on knowledge-oriented retrieval-augmented generation,

M. Cheng, Y . Luo, J. Ouyang, Q. Liu, H. Liu, L. Li, S. Yu, B. Zhang, J. Cao, J. Ma, D. Wang, and E. Chen, “A survey on knowledge-oriented retrieval-augmented generation,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10677

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

Similarity is not all you need: Endowing retrieval augmented generation with multi layered thoughts,

C. Gan, D. Yang, B. Hu, H. Zhang, S. Li, Z. Liu, Y . Shen, L. Ju, Z. Zhang, J. Guet al., “Similarity is not all you need: Endowing retrieval augmented generation with multi layered thoughts,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19893, 2024

work page arXiv 2024
[5]

Qwen3 Technical Report

A. Yang, A. Li, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Gao, C. Huang, C. Lv, C. Zheng, D. Liu, F. Zhou, F. Huang, F. Hu, H. Ge, H. Wei, H. Lin, J. Tang, J. Yang, J. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Yang, J. Zhou, J. Zhou, J. Lin, K. Dang, K. Bao, K. Yang, L. Yu, L. Deng, M. Li, M. Xue, M. Li, P. Zhang, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Men, R. Gao, S. Liu, S. Luo, T. ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[6]

Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

D. G. DeepSeek-AI, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, R. Zhang, R. Xuet al., “Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.” arxiv,”Preprint posted online on, vol. 22, pp. 13–14, 2025

work page 2025
[7]

Qwen2 Technical Report

A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Zhou, C. Li, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, G. Dong, H. Wei, H. Lin, J. Tang, J. Wang, J. Yang, J. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Ma, J. Yang, J. Xu, J. Zhou, J. Bai, J. He, J. Lin, K. Dang, K. Lu, K. Chen, K. Yang, M. Li, M. Xue, N. Ni, P. Zhang, P. Wang, R. Peng, R. Men, R. Gao, R. Lin, S. Wang, S. Bai, S. Tan, T. Zhu, T. Li, T...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[8]

Qwen2.5 Technical Report

Qwen, :, A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Wei, H. Lin, J. Yang, J. Tu, J. Zhang, J. Yang, J. Yang, J. Zhou, J. Lin, K. Dang, K. Lu, K. Bao, K. Yang, L. Yu, M. Li, M. Xue, P. Zhang, Q. Zhu, R. Men, R. Lin, T. Li, T. Tang, T. Xia, X. Ren, X. Ren, Y . Fan, Y . Su, Y . Zhang, Y . Wan, Y . Liu, Z. Cui, Z. Zhang, ...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[9]

Towards Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Reinforced Reasoning with Large Language Models

F. Xu, Q. Hao, Z. Zong, J. Wang, Y . Zhang, J. Wang, X. Lan, J. Gong, T. Ouyang, F. Meng, C. Shao, Y . Yan, Q. Yang, Y . Song, S. Ren, X. Hu, Y . Li, J. Feng, C. Gao, and Y . Li, “Towards large reasoning models: A survey of reinforced reasoning with large language models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09686

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[10]

Polyrag: Integrating polyviews into retrieval-augmented generation for medical applications,

C. Gan, D. Yang, B. Huet al., “Polyrag: Integrating polyviews into retrieval-augmented generation for medical applications,”

work page
[11]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14917

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14917

work page arXiv
[12]

Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks,

P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. K ¨uttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rockt ¨aschel, S. Riedel, and D. Kiela, “Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks,” inProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’20. Red Hook, NY , USA: Curran Associa...

work page 2020
[13]

Learning to plan for retrieval-augmented large language models from knowledge graphs,

J. Wang, M. Chen, B. Hu, D. Yanget al., “Learning to plan for retrieval-augmented large language models from knowledge graphs,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, Y . Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, and Y .-N. Chen, Eds. Miami, Florida, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 2024, pp. 7813–7835. [Online]. Availab...

work page 2024
[14]

Retrieval-based language models and applications,

A. Asai, S. Min, Z. Zhong, and D. Chen, “Retrieval-based language models and applications,” inProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 6: Tutorial Abstracts), Y .-N. V . Chen, M. Margot, and S. Reddy, Eds. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2023, pp. 41–46. [Online]. Avai...

work page 2023
[15]

Hirag: Hierarchical-thought instruction-tuning retrieval-augmented generation,

Y . Jiao, Z. Tan, D. Yang, D. Sun, J. Feng, Y . Shen, J. Wang, and P. Wei, “Hirag: Hierarchical-thought instruction-tuning retrieval-augmented generation,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.05714

work page arXiv 2025
[16]

Prgb benchmark: A robust placeholder-assisted algorithm for benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation,

Z. Tan, Y . Jiao, D. Yang, L. Liuet al., “Prgb benchmark: A robust placeholder-assisted algorithm for benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22927

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models,

W. Fan, Y . Ding, L. Ning, S. Wang, H. Li, D. Yin, T.-S. Chua, and Q. Li, “A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models,” inProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ser. KDD ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, p. 6491–6501. [Online]. Available: ...

work page doi:10.1145/3637528.3671470 2024
[18]

Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts,

N. F. Liu, K. Lin, J. Hewitt, A. Paranjape, M. Bevilacqua, F. Petroni, and P. Liang, “Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts,”Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 12, pp. 157–173, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2024.tacl-1.9/

work page 2024
[19]

DynRank: Improve passage retrieval with dynamic zero-shot prompting based on question classification,

A. Abdallah, J. Mozafari, B. Piryani, M. M. Abdelgwad, and A. Jatowt, “DynRank: Improve passage retrieval with dynamic zero-shot prompting based on question classification,” inProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, O. Rambow, L. Wanner, M. Apidianaki, H. Al-Khalifa, B. D. Eugenio, and S. Schockaert, Eds. Abu Dhabi, ...

work page 2025
[20]

Rankrag: unifying context ranking with retrieval-augmented generation in llms,

Y . Yu, W. Ping, Z. Liu, B. Wang, J. You, C. Zhang, M. Shoeybi, and B. Catanzaro, “Rankrag: unifying context ranking with retrieval-augmented generation in llms,” inProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’24. Red Hook, NY , USA: Curran Associates Inc., 2025

work page 2025
[21]

Rankt5: Fine-tuning t5 for text ranking with ranking losses,

H. Zhuang, Z. Qin, R. Jagerman, K. Hui, J. Ma, J. Lu, J. Ni, X. Wang, and M. Bendersky, “Rankt5: Fine-tuning t5 for text ranking with ranking losses,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.10634

work page arXiv 2022
[22]

Rankzephyr: Effective and robust zero-shot listwise reranking is a breeze!

R. Pradeep, S. Sharifymoghaddam, and J. Lin, “Rankzephyr: Effective and robust zero-shot listwise reranking is a breeze!”

work page
[23]

RankZephyr: Effective and Robust Zero-Shot Listwise Reranking is a Breeze!

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02724

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[24]

Rank-r1: Enhancing reasoning in llm-based document rerankers via reinforcement learning,

S. Zhuang, X. Ma, B. Koopman, J. Lin, and G. Zuccon, “Rank-r1: Enhancing reasoning in llm-based document rerankers via reinforcement learning,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.06034

work page arXiv 2025
[25]

Erank: Fusing supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning for effective and efficient text reranking,

Y . Cai, Y . Zhang, D. Long, M. Li, P. Xie, and W. Zheng, “Erank: Fusing supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning for effective and efficient text reranking,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00520

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Tfrank: Think-free reasoning enables practical pointwise llm ranking,

Y . Fan, X. Chen, D. Ye, J. Liu, H. Liang, J. Ma, B. He, Y . Sun, and T. Ruan, “Tfrank: Think-free reasoning enables practical pointwise llm ranking,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09539

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Coranking: Collaborative ranking with small and large ranking agents,

W. Liu, X. Ma, Y . Zhu, L. Su, S. Wang, D. Yin, and Z. Dou, “Coranking: Collaborative ranking with small and large ranking agents,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.23427

work page arXiv 2025
[28]

Large language models are effective text rankers with pairwise ranking prompting,

Z. Qin, R. Jagerman, K. Hui, H. Zhuang, J. Wu, L. Yan, J. Shen, T. Liu, J. Liu, D. Metzler, X. Wang, and M. Bendersky, “Large language models are effective text rankers with pairwise ranking prompting,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, K. Duh, H. Gomez, and S. Bethard, Eds. Mexico City, Mexico: Association for Compu...

work page 2024
[29]

Tongsearch-qr: Reinforced query reasoning for retrieval,

X. Qin, J. Bai, J. Li, Z. Jia, and Z. Zheng, “Tongsearch-qr: Reinforced query reasoning for retrieval,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.11603

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

ReasonRank: Empowering Passage Ranking with Strong Reasoning Ability

W. Liu, X. Ma, W. Sun, Y . Zhu, Y . Li, D. Yin, and Z. Dou, “Reasonrank: Empowering passage ranking with strong reasoning ability,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2508.07050

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[31]

Zero-shot listwise document reranking with a large language model,

X. Ma, X. Zhang, R. Pradeep, and J. Lin, “Zero-shot listwise document reranking with a large language model,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.02156

work page arXiv 2023
[32]

Diver: A multi-stage approach for reasoning-intensive information retrieval,

M. Long, D. Sun, D. Yang, J. Wang, Y . Shen, J. Wang, P. Wei, J. Gu, and J. Wang, “Diver: A multi-stage approach for reasoning-intensive information retrieval,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07995

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models,

Z. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, J. Song, X. Bi, H. Zhang, M. Zhang, Y . K. Li, Y . Wu, and D. Guo, “Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models,”

work page
[34]

DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[35]

Bright: A realistic and challenging benchmark for reasoning-intensive retrieval,

H. Su, H. Yen, M. Xia, W. Shi, N. Muennighoff, H. yu Wang, H. Liu, Q. Shi, Z. S. Siegel, M. Tang, R. Sun, J. Yoon, S. O. Arik, D. Chen, and T. Yu, “Bright: A realistic and challenging benchmark for reasoning-intensive retrieval,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12883

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

R2MED: A Benchmark for Reasoning-Driven Medical Retrieval

L. Li, X. Zhou, and Z. Liu, “R2med: A benchmark for reasoning-driven medical retrieval,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14558

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[37]

BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models

N. Thakur, N. Reimers, A. R ¨uckl´e, A. Srivastava, and I. Gurevych, “Beir: A heterogenous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08663

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[38]

Rank-k: Test-time reasoning for listwise reranking,

E. Yang, A. Yates, K. Ricci, O. Weller, V . Chari, B. V . Durme, and D. Lawrie, “Rank-k: Test-time reasoning for listwise reranking,”

work page
[39]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14432

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14432

work page arXiv
[40]

Ms-swift: A comprehensive framework for training and deploying large language and multimodal models,

M. Community, “Ms-swift: A comprehensive framework for training and deploying large language and multimodal models,”

work page
[41]

Available: https://github.com/modelscope/ ms-swift

[Online]. Available: https://github.com/modelscope/ ms-swift

work page
[42]

HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework

G. Sheng, C. Zhang, Z. Yeet al., “Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework,”arXiv preprint, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.19256

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[43]

LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models

E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[44]

Hanrag: Heuristic accurate noise-resistant retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop question answering,

D. Sun, D. Yang, Y . Shen, Y . Jiaoet al., “Hanrag: Heuristic accurate noise-resistant retrieval-augmented generation for multi-hop question answering,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09713 X. APENDIX Prompt 1: Prompt of Listwise Labeling use Gemini2.5-Pro You are an expert passage reranker. Your task is to rank the provided passage...

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

**Understand the Query:** Identify the core question or intent behind the user’s query

work page
[46]

A passage is **valuable** if it directly and effectively helps answer the query

**Evaluate Passages:** Think step-by-step to assess each passage. A passage is **valuable** if it directly and effectively helps answer the query. It is **not valuable** if it merely discusses similar topics without providing a direct answer

work page
[47]

* Then, output a single JSON array containing the integer IDs of **all** provided passages

**Rank & Output:** * First, briefly explain your reasoning process for the ranking. * Then, output a single JSON array containing the integer IDs of **all** provided passages. The array must be sorted from the most valuable passage to the least valuable. The final output should look like this: <Your reasoning here> “‘json ...integeridshere... “‘ The user’...

work page
[48]

PRIMARY: Usefulness & Helpfulness - Does the document provide actionable information, solutions, or direct answers that help address the user’s needs?

work page
[49]

SECONDARY: Relevance - Does the document contain information related to the query topic? Evaluation Process:

work page
[50]

First, identify the user’s core intent and what kind of help they need from the query

work page
[51]

For each document, assess: - How directly it addresses the user’s intent - What actionable information or answers it provides - How much it helps solve the user’s problem or need

work page
[52]

Compare documents against each other to ensure proper ranking

work page
[53]

‘json {”[1]

Assign scores that reflect the relative usefulness ranking Scoring Scale (0-10): - 9-10: Extremely helpful, directly answers the query with actionable information - 7-8: Very helpful, provides substantial useful information for the query - 5-6: Moderately helpful, contains some useful information but incomplete - 3-4: Minimally helpful, limited useful inf...

work page