Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

LLM rerankers lose 5-15% on truly novel queries

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

On a new benchmark of post-April 2025 queries, LLM rerankers show a 5-15% performance drop compared with familiar benchmarks, and lightweight models match them on efficiency and sometimes accuracy.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful new dataset and broad benchmark sweep, but the paper's central temporal-generalization claim is confounded and the data quality needs work. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.16757 v1 pith:O4APCEKN submitted 2025-08-22 cs.CL cs.IR

How Good are LLM-based Rerankers? An Empirical Analysis of State-of-the-Art Reranking Models

Abdelrahman Abdallah , Bhawna Piryani , Jamshid Mozafari , Mohammed Ali , Adam Jatowt This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.IR
keywords rerankingtemporal generalizationdata contaminationLLM evaluationbenchmark designinformation retrievalFutureQueryEval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tests whether state-of-the-art reranking models actually generalize to queries and documents unseen during training, rather than merely doing well on familiar benchmarks. It introduces FutureQueryEval, a dataset of 148 queries grounded in post-April-2025 events that should be outside the training data of the evaluated models, and runs 22 methods (40 variants) across pointwise, pairwise, and listwise paradigms. The central finding is a consistent 5-15% performance drop on FutureQueryEval across all method categories when compared with established benchmarks like TREC DL19, DL20, and BEIR. The paper argues that claims of generalization based on standard benchmarks are therefore overstated, and that reranking models exhibit significant temporal sensitivity. It also finds that listwise methods degrade least, that the advantage of larger models narrows on novel queries, and that lightweight models offer competitive efficiency.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that reranking effectiveness measured on standard benchmarks does not transfer to genuinely novel content: across pointwise, pairwise, and listwise rerankers, performance on FutureQueryEval drops consistently by 5-15% relative to established benchmarks. This gap is interpreted as temporal sensitivity: models are sensitive to whether the query and document content falls inside their pretraining or fine-tuning time horizon. The paper further finds that listwise methods show the smallest drop (about 8% on average), while pointwise and pairwise drops average about 12% and 15% respectively, and that the performance gap between large and small models narrows substantia

What carries the argument

FutureQueryEval is the load-bearing instrument: a new evaluation dataset of 148 queries and 2,938 query-document pairs, with documents collected from April 2025 onward, intended to be outside the training horizon of the evaluated models. It spans seven categories (world news, technology, sports, science, business, health, entertainment), uses three-level relevance annotations, and is validated for novelty only against GPT-4 on a subset of queries. The comparison design pairs this dataset against TREC DL19/DL20 and eight BEIR datasets, with BM25 producing the initial 100-document pool for all methods, isolating novelty as the variable being tested.

Load-bearing premise

FutureQueryEval's queries and documents are genuinely unseen by every evaluated model, even though novelty is verified only against GPT-4 and only on a subset of queries.

What would settle it

Run a memorization probe: ask each evaluated model (especially Llama-3.2, Zephyr, Vicuna, and GPT-3.5) to complete or recognize a sample of FutureQueryEval queries and document snippets, and compare their behavior to a control set of clearly novel synthetic queries. If any model reliably reproduces the post-April-2025 content, the temporal gap is not a clean measure of novelty. Alternatively, re-score FutureQueryEval while controlling for query length, category mix, and document style-matched queries from earlier periods; if the 5-15% gap shrinks to near zero, the gap is due to dataset differe

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the 5-15% temporal generalization gap is real, any reranker evaluation that uses only static benchmarks should be treated as an upper bound on real-world performance, not a reliable prediction.
  • Listwise rerankers, by modeling inter-document relationships, appear more robust to unseen content; this suggests prompt architecture can partially compensate for parametric knowledge gaps.
  • The narrowing gap between large and small models on FutureQueryEval implies that model scale buys less on genuinely novel queries than on familiar ones, which affects cost-benefit decisions in deployment.
  • Lightweight models such as FlashRank and ColBERT-v2 deliver competitive novel-query accuracy at a fraction of the runtime, making them attractive for systems that must handle current events or fast-changing corpora.
  • Standard benchmarks that are reused for years need to be supplemented with rolling, temporally dated evaluation sets to avoid overstating progress.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: probe the evaluated open-weight models (Llama-3.2, Zephyr, Vicuna) directly on FutureQueryEval queries for memorization, since the paper only checks GPT-4; if memorization exists in some models, the clean novelty assumption weakens and the gap estimate changes per model.
  • The temporal gap may partly reflect differences in query difficulty or document style rather than novelty alone; controlling for lexical overlap and estimated query complexity would sharpen the causal claim.
  • The listwise advantage on novel queries suggests a design principle: rerankers used in retrieval-augmented generation for emerging topics should emphasize comparative, list-level decoding rather than independent pointwise scoring.
  • A rolling benchmark like FutureQueryEval could be institutionalized with periodic refresh cycles, allowing the field to measure contamination drift over time as models' training cutoffs advance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a large-scale empirical evaluation of 22 reranking methods (40 variants) spanning pointwise, pairwise, and listwise paradigms. The authors evaluate on TREC DL19/DL20, eight BEIR datasets, Natural Questions, WebQuestions, and a newly constructed benchmark, FutureQueryEval, consisting of 148 queries and 2,787 documents collected after April 2025. The main claims are: (i) LLM-based rerankers outperform lightweight models on familiar queries but generalize inconsistently to novel queries; (ii) there is a 'consistent 5-15% performance drop' when moving from standard benchmarks to FutureQueryEval, indicating temporal sensitivity; (iii) listwise methods degrade less than pointwise or pairwise methods on novel content; and (iv) lightweight models offer strong efficiency-effectiveness trade-offs. The paper also analyzes the effects of training data overlap, model architecture, and computational efficiency.

Significance. If the central temporal-generalization claim were established, the paper would make a valuable contribution: FutureQueryEval would be a useful resource for measuring contamination-resistant reranking performance, and the comparison across 40 model variants on both standard and temporally novel data would inform practical model selection. The authors are commendably explicit about data-contamination risks in established benchmarks and provide a public repository. However, the paper's headline claim---that the observed performance gap is due to temporal novelty---is not supported by the current experimental design. The comparison is confounded by multiple differences between benchmark families, and the internal results contain inconsistencies. The underlying evaluation effort is substantial and salvageable, but the central interpretation needs reworking and additional controls.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.4, Tables 2–4 vs Tables 6–8] The central claim of a 'consistent 5–15% performance drop' indicating 'significant temporal sensitivity' is not established. FutureQueryEval and the standard benchmarks differ not only by collection date but also in query topic distribution (7 categories vs BEIR/TREC domains), relevance scale (0–2 vs 0–3), document length distribution (97% of FutureQueryEval documents are under 110 tokens), and annotation protocol (single annotator, no inter-annotator agreement). Any of these differences could produce the observed drop independently of temporal novelty. The paper includes no matched control set of non-novel queries collected with the same protocol, and no statistical adjustment or significance testing. The 5–15% range is also not derived from any table: e.g., MonoT5-3B drops from 71.83 (DL19) to 60.75 (FutureQueryEval), a different magnitude depending on the comparison benchmark. The cau
  2. [§7 and Table 7] There is an internal inconsistency in the headline FutureQueryEval results. The text states that Zephyr-7B leads listwise methods with NDCG@10 of 62.65, and later says TourRank with GPT-4o achieves the highest listwise performance with NDCG@10 of 62.02. Table 7 reports Zephyr-7B at 62.65 and GPT-4o TourRank at 63.53, with 62.02 appearing as NDCG@5. Similarly, the text credits RankLLaMA-13B with NDCG@10 59.00, while Table 6 lists 61.94. These contradictions undermine the method-specific degradation patterns claimed in §5.4 and §7.1 and must be corrected.
  3. [§6, Appendix A.1] The novelty verification is insufficient for the conclusions drawn. The dataset claims to contain queries unseen by pretrained models, but novelty is checked only against GPT-4 on a subset of queries. Several evaluated models (e.g., Llama-3.2, Zephyr, GPT-3.5) and lightweight rankers (e.g., MonoT5, ColBERT, InRanker) have different training corpora; the paper does not test whether FutureQueryEval content overlaps with them. 'Post-April 2025' is only a proxy for novelty. If any evaluated model has memorized these events or documents, the temporal gap is not a clean measure of novelty. The authors should either run contamination checks for all evaluated models or limit the novelty claim to the subset actually verified.
  4. [§5.1, §5.4] The paper reports that results are averaged over three random seeds, but no variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported anywhere. Many comparisons rely on small differences (e.g., 60.75 vs 60.03 for the top pointwise models on FutureQueryEval, or 62.65 vs 63.53 for listwise leaders). Without error bars or paired significance tests, these differences cannot be distinguished from noise. At minimum, standard deviations should be reported and paired statistical tests should be used for the temporal-gap and method-comparison claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] Typos and formatting issues: 'DL20 0.467' for GPT2-large, '61. 68' for Inranker-small, and inconsistent number of decimals across entries.
  2. [Figure 1] Caption/legend mismatch: the figure legend labels the pairwise method as EchoRank, while the caption identifies the pairwise method as PRP-FLAN-UL2. The radar chart should be consistent.
  3. [Table 5] The table header says Top-1, Top-5, Top-10, Top-20, and Top-50 accuracy, but the table only shows Top-1, Top-10, and Top-50. Align the header with the reported columns.
  4. [Appendix A.1] The sentence 'The author of the paper who annotated this dataset.' is ungrammatical and incomplete. Please specify who annotated, how many annotators, and what instructions were used.
  5. [§7.2] The efficiency measurements (Figures 3 and 4) lack details on hardware, API latency, batch size, and whether time includes API network overhead. These details are needed to interpret the trade-off claims.
  6. [§5.1] 'All experiments were ran' should be 'All experiments were run.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: results are empirical measurements on external and newly constructed benchmarks; the few self-citations are tooling/background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical evaluation, not a derivation. All central claims are based on measured nDCG@10/MAP scores on established benchmarks (TREC DL19/DL20, BEIR, NQ, WebQ) and on the newly constructed FutureQueryEval. The 'temporal generalization gap' in Section 5.4 is an observed comparison across benchmark families, not an output forced by a fitted parameter or by a definitional identity; the benchmarks are external and the scores are computed, not generated from the paper's own model. The novelty claim for FutureQueryEval is an input assumption about data collection dates, verified against GPT-4, and is not used to define the performance metrics. Self-citations to Rankify, RankArena, DynRank, and ASRank are tooling or background references and do not carry the argument; no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz, and no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern appears. The main legitimate concern is a confounded comparison (benchmarks differ in topics, annotation scale, and document length), but that is a validity/correctness issue, not circularity. Score 2 reflects the presence of several self-citations that are minor and non-load-bearing; otherwise the analysis is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim depends on the novelty, annotation quality, and evaluation setup of FutureQueryEval, all of which rest on assumptions the paper only partially validates. The axioms above are the unstated premises that connect the new dataset to the conclusion about temporal generalization.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption FutureQueryEval queries and documents are truly unseen by all evaluated models
    Section A.1 states novelty was verified against GPT-4 on a subset of queries, not against all evaluated models (Llama, Zephyr, GPT-3.5, lightweight rankers), so the temporal-novelty claim is assumed for those models.
  • domain assumption BM25 top-100 is a fair and sufficient candidate pool for all rerankers
    Section 5.1 fixes BM25/Pyserini top-100 for all methods; different first-stage retrievers can change reranker outcomes, so this setup is an unstated assumption on the comparison.
  • domain assumption Single-annotator 3-level relevance labels are reliable ground truth
    Section A.1 says 'The author of the paper who annotated this dataset', with no inter-annotator agreement or adjudication reported; label noise affects all downstream conclusions.
  • domain assumption nDCG@10 comparisons across differently distributed datasets are meaningful
    Tables 2-4 and 6-8 compare nDCG@10 across benchmarks with different query counts, label distributions, and candidate depths, assuming metric comparability when computing the 5-15% gap.
  • domain assumption Performance drop on FutureQueryEval is attributable to query novelty rather than to domain difficulty
    No matched non-novel control dataset with the same topics and label distribution is provided; Section 5.4 interprets the drop as 'temporal sensitivity' and calls it the 'Temporal Generalization Gap'.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Good are LLM-based Rerankers? An Empirical Analysis of State-of-the-Art Reranking Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4APCEKN

@misc{pith2026250816757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Good are LLM-based Rerankers? An Empirical Analysis of State-of-the-Art Reranking Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4APCEKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16757}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this work, we present a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art reranking methods, encompassing large language model (LLM)-based, lightweight contextual, and zero-shot approaches, with respect to their performance in information retrieval tasks. We evaluate in total 22 methods, including 40 variants (depending on used LLM) across several established benchmarks, including TREC DL19, DL20, and BEIR, as well as a novel dataset designed to test queries unseen by pretrained models. Our primary goal is to determine, through controlled and fair comparisons, whether a performance disparity exists between LLM-based rerankers and their lightweight counterparts, particularly on novel queries, and to elucidate the underlying causes of any observed differences. To disentangle confounding factors, we analyze the effects of training data overlap, model architecture, and computational efficiency on reranking performance. Our findings indicate that while LLM-based rerankers demonstrate superior performance on familiar queries, their generalization ability to novel queries varies, with lightweight models offering comparable efficiency. We further identify that the novelty of queries significantly impacts reranking effectiveness, highlighting limitations in existing approaches. https://github.com/DataScienceUIBK/llm-reranking-generalization-study

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16757 by Abdelrahman Abdallah, Adam Jatowt, Bhawna Piryani, Jamshid Mozafari, Mohammed Ali.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radar chart comparing nDCG@10 perfor￾mance of top pointwise (MonoT5-3B), pairwise (PRP￾FLAN-UL2), and listwise (RankGPT-gpt-4) reranking methods across TREC DL19, all BEIR datasets, and FutureQueryEval. DL20 is excluded to maintain chart readability given the large number of datasets displayed. and GPT-4 (Achiam et al., 2023), have advanced reranking with strong contextual understanding and zero-shot capab… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of reranking approaches: (a) Pointwise approach, scoring each query-document pair indepen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MRR vs. Time for the fastest model from each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MRR vs. Time for the highest-MRR model from each reranking method on FutureQueryEval, show￾casing peak performance and associated time costs. 8 Conclusion We presented a comprehensive empirical study of 22 reranking methods across 40 variants, spanning pointwise, pairwise, and listwise paradigms. Our evaluation across standard IR benchmarks and the novel FutureQueryEval dataset reveals that while LLM-based… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative Distribution Function of Docu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of Questions by Category in Fu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MAP at various cutoffs (1, 5, 10, 20, 50, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MAP at various cutoffs (1, 5, 10, 20, 50, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Scaling Search Relevance: Augmenting App Store Ranking with LLM-Generated Judgments

    cs.IR 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Using a fine-tuned 3B LLM to generate millions of textual relevance labels for App Store search improves the ranker's behavioral/textual Pareto frontier and lifts conversion by 0.24%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah, Mahmoud Abdalla, Bhawna Piryani, Jamshid Mozafari, Mohammed Ali, and Adam Jatowt. 2025 a . Rankarena: A unified platform for evaluating retrieval, reranking and rag with human and llm feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05512

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah and Adam Jatowt. 2023. Generator-retriever-generator: A novel approach to open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.11278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Abdelgwad, and Adam Jatowt

    Abdelrahman Abdallah, Jamshid Mozafari, Bhawna Piryani, Mohammed M. Abdelgwad, and Adam Jatowt. 2025 b . https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.319/ D yn R ank: Improve passage retrieval with dynamic zero-shot prompting based on question classification . In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4768--4778,...

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah, Jamshid Mozafari, Bhawna Piryani, and Adam Jatowt. 2025 c . Asrank: Zero-shot re-ranking with answer scent for document retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15245

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah, Bhawna Piryani, Jamshid Mozafari, Mohammed Ali, and Adam Jatowt. 2025 d . Rankify: A comprehensive python toolkit for retrieval, re-ranking, and retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Abdelrahman Abdallah, Bhawna Piryani, Jonas Wallat, Avishek Anand, and Adam Jatowt. 2025 e . Tempretriever: Fusion-based temporal dense passage retrieval for time-sensitive questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, and 1 others. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Luiz Bonifacio, Hugo Abonizio, Marzieh Fadaee, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2022. Inpars: Data augmentation for information retrieval using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05144

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading wikipedia to answer open-domain questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Shijie Chen, Bernal Jim \'e nez Guti \'e rrez, and Yu Su. 2024. Attention in large language models yields efficient zero-shot re-rankers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02642

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Yiqun Chen, Qi Liu, Yi Zhang, Weiwei Sun, Xinyu Ma, Wei Yang, Daiting Shi, Jiaxin Mao, and Dawei Yin. 2025. Tourrank: Utilizing large language models for documents ranking with a tournament-inspired strategy. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pages 1638--1652

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, Daniel Campos, and Ellen M Voorhees. 2020. Overview of the trec 2019 deep learning track. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07820

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Shrey Desai and Greg Durrett. 2020. Calibration of pre-trained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07892

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers), pages 4171--4186

    2019

  15. [15]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yixin Dai, Jiawei Sun, Haofen Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2:1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Raphael Gruber, Abdelrahman Abdallah, Michael F \"a rber, and Adam Jatowt. 2024. Complextempqa: A large-scale dataset for complex temporal question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04866

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Dongfu Jiang, Xiang Ren, and Bill Yuchen Lin. 2023. Llm-blender: Ensembling large language models with pairwise ranking and generative fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02561

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Ziyan Jiang, Xueguang Ma, and Wenhu Chen. 2024. Longrag: Enhancing retrieval-augmented generation with long-context llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. 2020. Colbert: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over bert. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, pages 39--48

    2020

  20. [20]

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199--22213

    2022

  21. [21]

    Thiago Soares Laitz, Konstantinos Papakostas, Roberto Lotufo, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2024. Inranker: Distilled rankers for zero-shot information retrieval. In Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems, pages 140--154. Springer

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K \"u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \"a schel, and 1 others. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:9459--9474

    2020

  23. [23]

    Jimmy Lin, Xueguang Ma, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Ronak Pradeep, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. Pyserini : A Python toolkit for reproducible information retrieval research with sparse and dense representations. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2021), pages...

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Qi Liu, Bo Wang, Nan Wang, and Jiaxin Mao. 2025. Leveraging passage embeddings for efficient listwise reranking with large language models. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pages 4274--4283

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Xueguang Ma, Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, and Jimmy Lin. 2024. Fine-tuning llama for multi-stage text retrieval. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2421--2425

    2024

  26. [26]

    Xueguang Ma, Xinyu Zhang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2023. Zero-shot listwise document reranking with a large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Shengyu Mao, Yong Jiang, Boli Chen, Xiao Li, Peng Wang, Xinyu Wang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. 2024. Rafe: ranking feedback improves query rewriting for rag. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Jamshid Mozafari, Abdelrahman Abdallah, Bhawna Piryani, and Adam Jatowt. 2024. Exploring hint generation approaches in open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16096

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. Ms marco: A human-generated machine reading comprehension dataset

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pretrained sequence-to-sequence model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06713

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Ronak Pradeep, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, and Jimmy Lin. 2023 a . Rankvicuna: Zero-shot listwise document reranking with open-source large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15088

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Ronak Pradeep, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, and Jimmy Lin. 2023 b . Rankzephyr: Effective and robust zero-shot listwise reranking is a breeze! arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02724

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Honglei Zhuang, Junru Wu, Le Yan, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Donald Metzler, and 1 others. 2023. Large language models are effective text rankers with pairwise ranking prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17563

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Muhammad Shihab Rashid, Jannat Ara Meem, Yue Dong, and Vagelis Hristidis. 2024. Ecorank: Budget-constrained text re-ranking using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10866

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Revanth Gangi Reddy, JaeHyeok Doo, Yifei Xu, Md Arafat Sultan, Deevya Swain, Avirup Sil, and Heng Ji. 2024. First: Faster improved listwise reranking with single token decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15657

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Devendra Singh Sachan, Mike Lewis, Mandar Joshi, Armen Aghajanyan, Wen-tau Yih, Joelle Pineau, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Improving passage retrieval with zero-shot question generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07496

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of exposure in rankings. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 2219--2228

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is chatgpt good at search? investigating large language models as re-ranking agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Manveer Singh Tamber, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2023. Scaling down, litting up: Efficient zero-shot listwise reranking with seq2seq encoder-decoder models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16098

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas R \"u ckl \'e , Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. Beir: A heterogenous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Yuan Wang, Xuyang Wu, Hsin-Tai Wu, Zhiqiang Tao, and Yi Fang. 2024. Do large language models rank fairly? an empirical study on the fairness of llms as rankers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03192

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Khaled Yasser, Mucahid Kutlu, and Tamer Elsayed. 2018. Re-ranking web search results for better fact-checking: a preliminary study. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1783--1786

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Soyoung Yoon, Eunbi Choi, Jiyeon Kim, Hyeongu Yun, Yireun Kim, and Seung-won Hwang. 2024. Listt5: Listwise reranking with fusion-in-decoder improves zero-shot retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15838

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Hao Yu, Aoran Gan, Kai Zhang, Shiwei Tong, Qi Liu, and Zhaofeng Liu. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-1024-2_8 Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey , page 102–120. Springer Nature Singapore

    doi:10.1007/978-981-96-1024-2_8 2025

  46. [46]

    Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2022. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Meike Zehlike, Francesco Bonchi, Carlos Castillo, Sara Hajian, Mohamed Megahed, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2017. Fa* ir: A fair top-k ranking algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1569--1578

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Penghao Zhao, Hailin Zhang, Qinhan Yu, Zhengren Wang, Yunteng Geng, Fangcheng Fu, Ling Yang, Wentao Zhang, Jie Jiang, and Bin Cui. 2024. Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19473

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Honglei Zhuang, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Junru Wu, Le Yan, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bendersky. 2023 a . Beyond yes and no: Improving zero-shot llm rankers via scoring fine-grained relevance labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14122

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Honglei Zhuang, Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Ji Ma, Jing Lu, Jianmo Ni, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bendersky. 2023 b . Rankt5: Fine-tuning t5 for text ranking with ranking losses. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 2308--2313

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Shengyao Zhuang, Honglei Zhuang, Bevan Koopman, and Guido Zuccon. 2024. A setwise approach for effective and highly efficient zero-shot ranking with large language models. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 38--47

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  53. [53]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.