CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 270Information 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·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2304.09542arXiv 2304.09542
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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 pre-training 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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.09542

Cites

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?

  • Re-ranking retrieved passages based on their relevance to the query is an important application of LCLMs.

    “Re-ranking retrieved passages based on their relevance to the query is an important application of LCLMs (Sun et al., 2023).”

    From HELMET: How to Evaluate Long-Context Language Models Effectively and Thoroughly (2024) · cites this paper as Sun et al., 2023

    The Introduction and Section 3 describe using LLMs to rank retrieved passages by their relevance to a query and treat ranking as a core information-retrieval task. The paper does not specifically identify long-context language models (LCLMs) as the class for this application; Section 3.2 instead discusses working around LLM token limits with a sliding window. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Guided ChatGPT and GPT-4 exhibit competitive performance on popular benchmark tests, even outperforming supervised methods.

    “Experimental results demonstrate that guided ChatGPT and GPT-4 exhibit competitive performance on popular benchmark tests, even outperforming supervised methods.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [183]

  • RankGPT showed listwise LLM rerankers match supervised cross-encoders.

    “RankGPT (Sun et al., 2023) showed listwise LLM rerankers match supervised cross-encoders.”

    From Enrich-Retrieve-Rank: Scaling Capability Discovery Beyond In-Context Routing (2026) · 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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Negar Arabzadeh, Alexandra Vtyurina, Xinyi Yan, and Charles L. A. Clarke. 2021. Shallow pooling for sparse labels. Information Retrieval Journal, 25:365 -385.
  2. Luiz Henrique Bonifacio, Hugo Queiroz Abonizio, Marzieh Fadaee, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2022. In- pars: Data augmentation for information retrieval using large language models. In SIGIR 2022.
  3. Luiz Henrique Bonifacio, Israel Campiotti, Roberto de Alencar Lotufo, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2021. mmarco: A multilingual version of ms marco passage ranking dataset. ArXiv, abs/2108.13897. · arXiv
  4. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, T. J. Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeff Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS 2020.
  5. Sebastian Bruch, Xuanhui Wang, Michael Bendersky, and Marc Najork. 2019. An analysis of the softmax cross entropy loss for learning-to-rank with binary relevance. In SIGIR 2019.
  6. Christopher J. C. Burges, Tal Shaked, Erin Renshaw, Ari Lazier, Matt Deeds, Nicole Hamilton, and Gregory N. Hullender. 2005. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In ICML 2005.
  7. Daniel Fernando Campos, Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, Li Deng, and Bhaskar Mitra. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated machine reading compre- hension dataset. ArXiv, abs/1611.09268. · arXiv
  8. Nicola De Cao, Gautier Izacard, Sebastian Riedel, and Fabio Petroni. 2021. Autoregressive entity retrieval. In ICLR 2021.
  9. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, S. Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Web- son, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suz- gun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Dasha Valter, Sharan Narang, Gaurav Mishra, Adams Wei Yu, Vincent Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Hongkun Yu, Slav Petrov, Ed Huai hsin Chi, Jeff Dean, Jacob Devlin, Adam Roberts, Denny Zhou, Quoc V. Le, and Jason Wei. 2022. Scal- ing instruction-finetuned language models. ArXiv, abs/2210.11416. · arXiv
  10. Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, Daniel Fernando Campos, and Ellen M. Voorhees. 2020. Overview of the trec 2020 deep learning track. ArXiv, abs/2102.07662. · arXiv
  11. Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Zhao, Ji Ma, Yi Luan, Jianmo Ni, Jing Lu, Anton Bakalov, Kelvin Guu, Keith B. Hall, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2023. Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples. In ICLR 2023.
  12. Yao Fu, Hao-Chun Peng, Litu Ou, Ashish Sabharwal, and Tushar Khot. 2023. Specializing smaller lan- guage models towards multi-step reasoning. In ICML 2023.
  13. Luyu Gao, Xueguang Ma, Jimmy Lin, and Jamie Callan. 2023. Precise zero-shot dense retrieval without rele- vance labels. In ACL 2023.
  14. TMLR.
  15. 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.
  16. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Yu Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In EMNLP 2020.
  17. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Ku- mar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Man- ning, Christopher R'e, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, E. Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel J. Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan S. Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri S. Chatterji, O. Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas F. Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic eval- uation of language models. ArXiv, abs/2211.09110. · arXiv
  18. Jimmy J. Lin, Rodrigo Nogueira, and Andrew Yates. 2020. Pretrained transformers for text ranking: Bert and beyond. In WSDM 2020.
  19. Xueguang Ma, Xinyu Crystina Zhang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2023. Zero-shot listwise docu- ment reranking with a large language model. ArXiv, abs/2305.02156. · arXiv
  20. Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2023. Teaching small language models to reason. In ACL 2023.
  21. Niklas Muennighoff. 2022. Sgpt: Gpt sentence embed- dings for semantic search. ArXiv, abs/2202.08904. · arXiv
  22. Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, S. Arun Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. 2021. Webgpt: Browser- assisted question-answering with human feedback. ArXiv, abs/2112.09332. · arXiv
  23. Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Passage re-ranking with bert. ArXiv, abs/1901.04085. · arXiv
  24. Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pre- trained sequence-to-sequence model. In Findings of EMNLP 2020.
  25. OpenAI. 2022. Introducing chatgpt. https://openai. com/blog/chatgpt. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. ArXiv, abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
  26. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E. Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welin- der, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In NeurIPS 2022.
  27. Devendra Singh Sachan, Mike Lewis, Mandar Joshi, Armen Aghajanyan, Wen tau Yih, Joëlle Pineau, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2022. Improving passage retrieval with zero-shot question generation. In EMNLP 2022.
  28. Devendra Singh Sachan, Mike Lewis, Dani Yogatama, Luke Zettlemoyer, Joëlle Pineau, and Manzil Zaheer. 2023. Questions are all you need to train a dense passage retriever. TACL, page 600-616.
  29. Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Wen tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. ArXiv, abs/2301.12652. · arXiv
  30. Yi Tay, Vinh Q. Tran, Mostafa Dehghani, Jianmo Ni, Dara Bahri, Harsh Mehta, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Zhe Zhao, Jai Gupta, Tal Schuster, William W. Cohen, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Transformer memory as a differentiable search index. In NeurIPS 2022.
  31. 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.
  32. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aur'elien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. ArXiv, abs/2302.13971. · arXiv
  33. Liang Wang, Nan Yang, and Furu Wei. 2023a. Query2doc: Query expansion with large language models. ArXiv, abs/2303.07678. · arXiv
  34. Xuanhui Wang, Cheng Li, Nadav Golbandi, Michael Bendersky, and Marc Najork. 2018. The lambdaloss framework for ranking metric optimization. In CIKM 2018.
  35. 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.
  36. Wenhao Yu, Dan Iter, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Mingxuan Ju, Soumya Sanyal, Chenguang Zhu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2023. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. In ICLR 2023.
  37. Yutao Zhu, Huaying Yuan, Shuting Wang, Jiongnan Liu, Wenhan Liu, Chenlong Deng, Zhicheng Dou, and Ji rong Wen. 2023. Large language models for infor- mation retrieval: A survey. ArXiv, abs/2308.07107. · arXiv
  38. 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)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
14918-14937
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2304.09542
arXiv
2304.09542
OpenAlex
W4389523765
Cited by
270
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 16
FWCI
69.39
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
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