Cited by 279Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingRecommender Systems and Techniques

Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agents

Open access
Sun, Weiwei, Yan, Lingyong, Ma, Xinyu, Wang, Shuaiqiang, Ren, Pengjie, Chen, Zhumin, Yin, Dawei, Ren, Zhaochun·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot generalization across various language-related tasks, including search engines.However, existing work utilizes the generative ability of LLMs for Information Retrieval (IR) rather than direct passage ranking.The discrepancy between the pretraining objectives of LLMs and the ranking objective poses another challenge.In this paper, we first investigate generative LLMs such as ChatGPT and GPT-4 for relevance ranking in IR.Surprisingly, our experiments reveal that properly instructed LLMs can deliver competitive, even superior results to state-of-the-art supervised methods on popular IR benchmarks.Furthermore, to address concerns about data contamination of LLMs, we collect a new test set called NovelEval, based on the latest knowledge and aiming to verify the model's ability to rank unknown knowledge.Finally, to improve efficiency in real-world applications, we delve into the potential for distilling the ranking capabilities of ChatGPT into small specialized models using a permutation distillation scheme.Our evaluation results turn out that a distilled 440M model outperforms a 3B supervised model on the BEIR benchmark.The code to reproduce our results is available at www.github.com/sunnweiwei/RankGPT.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.923

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RBO is a widely used metric for evaluating the similarity between two ranked lists and is particularly relevant for information retrieval.

    “Rank-biased overlap (RBO)foot_6 is a widely used metric for evaluating the similarity between two ranked lists and is particularly relevant for tasks in information retrieval (Oh et al., 2022;Sun et al., 2023).”

    From Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators (2024) · cites this paper as Sun et al., 2023

    The RBO discussion (page unavailable) says the metric calculates similarity between two rankings and uses it to assess consistency in a passage re-ranking task. This supports its relevance to information retrieval, but the paper does not establish that RBO is widely used. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sun et al. (2023) show that LLMs can match or exceed strong supervised re-rankers on standard IR benchmarks, validating the 'generative engine as LLM re-ranker' abstraction.

    “A representative empirical anchor is Sun et al. (2023), who show that LLMs can match or exceed strong supervised re-rankers on standard IR benchmarks, validating the 'generative engine as LLM re-ranker' abstraction we build on.”

    From E-GEO: A Testbed for Generative Engine Optimization in E-Commerce (2025) · cites this paper as Sun et al., 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. TMLR.
  2. Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane A. Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2023. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. Journal of Machine Learning Re- search, 24(251):1-43.
  3. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Ruckl'e, Ab- hishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. Beir: A heterogenous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In NeurIPS 2021.
  4. Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023b. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self generated instructions. In ACL 2023.
  5. Lixin Zou, Shengqiang Zhang, Hengyi Cai, Dehong Ma, Suqi Cheng, Daiting Shi, Shuaiqiang Wang, Zhicong Cheng, and Dawei Yin. 2021. Pre-trained language model based ranking in baidu search. In KDD 2021. Method DL19 DL20 Covid NFCorpus Touche DBPedia SciFact Signal News Robust04 BEIR (Avg) BM25 50.58 47.96 59.47 30.75 44.22 31.80 67.89 33.05 39.52 40.70 43.42 Supervised train on MS MRACO monoBERT (340M) 70.50 67.28 70.01 36.88 31.75 41.87 71.36 31.44 44.62 49.35 47.16 monoT5 (220M) 71.48 66.99 78.34 37.38 30.82 42.42 73.40 31.67 46.83 51.72 49.07 monoT5 (3B) 71.83 68.89 80.71 38.97 32.41 44.45 76.57 32.55 48.49 56.71 51.36 Cohere Rerank-v2 73.22 67.08 81.81 36.36 32.51 42.51 74.44 29.60 47.59 50.78 49.45 Unsupervised instructional permutation generation ChatGPT 65.80 62.91 76.67 35.62 36.18 44.47 70.43 32.12 48.85 50.62 49.37 GPT-4 75.59 70.56 85.51 38.47 38.57 47.12 74.95 34.40 52.89 57.55 53.68 Specialized Models train on MARCO labels or ChatGPT predicted permutations MARCO Pointwise BCE 65.57 56.72 70.82 33.10 17.08 32.28 55.37 19.30 41.52 46.00 39.43 MARCO Listwise CE 65.99 57.97 66.31 32.61 20.15 30.79 37.57 18.09 38.11 39.93 35.45 MARCO RankNet 66.34 58.51 70.29 34.23 20.27 29.62 49.01 23.22 39.82 43.87 38.79 MARCO LambdaLoss 64.82 56.16 72.86 34.20 19.51 32.55 51.88 26.22 42.47 45.28 40.62 ChatGPT Listwise CE 65.39 58.80 76.29 35.73 38.19 40.24 64.49 31.37 47.61 48.00 47.74 ChatGPT RankNet 65.75 59.34 81.26 36.57 39.03 42.10 68.77 31.55 52.54 52.44 50.53 ChatGPT LambdaLoss 67.17 60.56 80.63 36.74 36.73 43.75 68.21 32.58 49.00 50.51 49.77 deberta-v3-xsmall (70M) 64.75 55.07 78.21 35.95 35.42 41.37 67.86 30.04 47.68 49.91 48.31 deberta-v3-small (142M) 67.85 58.84 78.88 36.55 36.16 40.99 66.66 30.29 49.17 49.73 48.55 deberta-v3-base (184M) 70.28 62.52 80.81 36.15 37.25 44.06 71.70 32.45 50.84 51.33 50.57 deberta-v3-large (435M) 70.66 67.15 84.64 38.48 39.27 47.36 74.18 32.53 51.19 56.55 53.03 deberta-v3-large 5K 70.93 64.32 84.43 38.66 40.72 46.28 73.88 31.93 52.24 55.89 53.00 deberta-v3-large 3K 70.79 63.91 84.21 38.73 39.83 45.74 74.41 31.92 52.29 57.42 53.07 deberta-v3-large 1K 69.90 64.81 83.38 38.94 36.65 44.46 71.96 30.19 50.73 53.74 51.26 deberta-v3-large 500 69.71 62.00 83.54 37.23 33.68 44.56 70.48 28.70 45.64 42.67 48.31 deberta-v3-large label 10K 66.61 57.26 74.36 33.94 18.09 34.95 35.35 21.38 39.00 44.94 37.75 deberta-v3-large label 5K 68.98 61.38 80.73 35.68 20.48 37.34 54.63 24.25 36.94 51.13 42.64 deberta-v3-large label 3K 67.41 60.42 79.82 35.49 24.54 37.39 47.31 23.29 39.87 50.65 42.29 deberta-v3-large label 1K 65.55 60.93 77.70 33.29 23.36 36.38 31.10 21.71 34.28 38.31 37.01 deberta-v3-large label 500 60.59 54.45 76.20 32.93 19.66 31.54 45.66 13.99 33.48 44.49 37.24 deberta-v3-large monoT5-3B 73.05 68.82 84.78 38.55 34.43 43.61 75.45 30.75 49.85 56.80 51.78 deberta-v3-large chatgpt+label 72.42 67.30 85.96 38.75 35.06 45.43 71.81 28.52 45.91 55.57 50.88 deberta-v3-base label 10k 65.66 59.84 71.63 34.65 16.53 32.59 34.65 22.64 37.60 44.02 36.79 deberta-v3-small label 10k 63.63 52.83 68.17 30.48 18.12 31.72 33.62 18.02 34.57 36.09 33.85 deberta-v3-xsmall label 10k 60.89 51.15 63.58 28.67 14.87 27.12 20.60 18.97 32.61 32.67 29.89 llama-7b 71.33 66.06 78.23 37.60 34.87 45.46 76.13 34.17 51.79 55.22 51.68 vicuna-7b 71.80 66.89 78.32 36.87 31.81 45.40 74.23 34.28 51.13 52.91 50.62 llama-7b 10k label 65.22 56.85 75.36 36.24 20.88 37.34 69.04 25.22 41.21 49.21 44.31 llama-7b 5k label 69.24 58.97 80.49 37.55 28.23 39.66 71.79 26.04 44.09 53.83 47.71

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, W., Yan, L., Ma, X., Wang, S., Ren, P., Chen, Z., Yin, D., & Ren, Z.
Affiliations
  • Shandong University (CN)
  • Baidu (China) (CN)
  • Leiden University (NL)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2023
Pages
14918-14937
OpenAlex
W4389523765
Cited by
270
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 16
FWCI
69.39
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Shandong University
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61972234, 62102234, 62272274, 62202271, 62072279)
  • China Scholarship Council
  • Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2021QF129)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
large language models, ChatGPT, GPT-4, re-ranking, information retrieval, passage ranking, relevance ranking, contaminated data, knowledge distillation, BEIR benchmark

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review