PreprintCited by 2Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingRecommender Systems and Techniques

JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking

Open access
Niu, Tong, Joty, Shafiq, Liu, Ye, Xiong, Caiming, Zhou, Yingbo, Yavuz, Semih·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Accurate document retrieval is crucial for the success of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) applications, including open-domain question answering and code completion. While large language models (LLMs) have been employed as dense encoders or listwise rerankers in RAG systems, they often struggle with reasoning-intensive tasks because they lack nuanced analysis when judging document relevance. To address this limitation, we introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. Our approach consists of three key steps: (1) query analysis to identify the core problem, (2) document analysis to extract a query-aware summary, and (3) relevance judgment to provide a concise assessment of document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods and outperforming other popular reranking approaches. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability. Through comprehensive ablation studies, we demonstrate that JudgeRank's performance generalizes well across LLMs of various sizes while ensembling them yields even more accurate reranking than individual models.

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.2411.00142

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?

  • Judge models can be categorized based on their input format as pairwise, listwise (ranking-based), or pointwise.

    “Judge models can be categorized differently based on their input format as pairwise, listwise (i.e., ranking-based), or pointwise (Hou et al., 2024; Niu et al., 2024; Gu et al., 2025).”

    From Know Thy Judge: On the Robustness Meta-Evaluation of LLM Safety Judges (2025) · cites this paper as Niu et al., 2024

    Section 5 (Related Work; page unavailable) distinguishes pointwise from listwise rerankers and discusses pairwise rerankers. It places pairwise rerankers within the broader listwise category, however, rather than presenting pairwise, listwise, and pointwise as three parallel categories. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 2

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Payal Bajaj, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Li Deng, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong Liu, Rangan Majumder, Andrew McNamara, Bhaskar Mitra, Tri Nguyen, et al. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated ma- chine reading comprehension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09268. · arXiv
  2. Benjamin Clavié. 2024. rerankers: A lightweight python library to unify ranking methods. Preprint, arXiv:2408.17344. · arXiv
  3. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783. · arXiv
  4. Luyu Gao, Zhuyun Dai, and Jamie Callan. 2021. Re- think training of bert rerankers in multi-stage retrieval pipeline. In Advances in Information Retrieval: 43rd European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2021, Virtual Event, March 28-April 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part II 43, pages 280-286. Springer.
  5. In Gim, Guojun Chen, Seung-seob Lee, Nikhil Sarda, Anurag Khandelwal, and Lin Zhong. 2024. Prompt cache: Modular attention reuse for low-latency infer- ence. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 6:325-338.
  6. Fang Guo, Wenyu Li, Honglei Zhuang, Yun Luo, Yafu Li, Le Yan, and Yue Zhang. 2024. Generating diverse criteria on-the-fly to improve point-wise llm rankers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11960. · arXiv
  7. Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebas- tian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Unsupervised dense informa- tion retrieval with contrastive learning. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.
  8. Ehsan Kamalloo, Nandan Thakur, Carlos Lassance, Xueguang Ma, Jheng-Hong Yang, and Jimmy Lin. 2023. Resources for brewing beir: Reproducible ref- erence models and an official leaderboard. Preprint, arXiv:2306.07471. · arXiv
  9. Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gon- zalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Efficient memory management for large language model serv- ing with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 611-626.
  10. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Hein- rich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rock- täschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 34th Inter- national Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems, NIPS '20, Red Hook, NY, USA.
  11. 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 Alexander Cosgrove, Christo- pher D Manning, Christopher Re, Diana Acosta- Navas, Drew Arad Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue WANG, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri S. Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan An- drew Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Ko- reeda. 2023. Holistic evaluation of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. Fea- tured Certification, Expert Certification.
  12. Qi Liu, Bo Wang, Nan Wang, and Jiaxin Mao. 2024a. Leveraging passage embeddings for efficient listwise reranking with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14848. · arXiv
  13. Xiaoran Liu, Hang Yan, Chenxin An, Xipeng Qiu, and Dahua Lin. 2024b. Scaling laws of roPE-based ex- trapolation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
  14. 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 Interna- tional ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and De- velopment in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '24, page 2421-2425, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI
  15. 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. · arXiv
  16. Michael EJ Masson. 1983. Conceptual processing of text during skimming and rapid sequential reading. Memory & cognition, 11(3):262-274.
  17. Niklas Muennighoff, Nouamane Tazi, Loïc Magne, and Nils Reimers. 2022. Mteb: Massive text embedding benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07316. · DOI
  18. T Nguyen. 2016. Ms marco: A human generated ma- chine reading comprehension dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09268. · arXiv
  19. Rodrigo Nogueira and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. Pas- sage re-ranking with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.04085. · arXiv
  20. Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pre- trained sequence-to-sequence model. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 708-718, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  21. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 35:27730-27744.
  22. Ronak Pradeep, Rodrigo Nogueira, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. The expando-mono-duo design pattern for text ranking with pretrained sequence-to-sequence models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05667. · arXiv
  23. Ronak Pradeep, Sahel Sharifymoghaddam, and Jimmy Lin. 2023. RankZephyr: Effective and ro- bust zero-shot listwise reranking is a breeze! arXiv:2312.02724. · arXiv
  24. Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Honglei Zhuang, Junru Wu, Le Yan, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Donald Metzler, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bendersky. 2024. Large language models are effec- tive text rankers with pairwise ranking prompting. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: NAACL 2024, pages 1504-1518, Mexico City, Mexico. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  25. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and be- yond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Re- trieval, 3(4):333-389.
  26. Hongjin Su, Howard Yen, Mengzhou Xia, Weijia Shi, Niklas Muennighoff, Han-yu Wang, Haisu Liu, Quan Shi, Zachary S Siegel, Michael Tang, et al. 2024. Bright: A realistic and challenging bench- mark for reasoning-intensive retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12883. · arXiv
  27. 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. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 14918-14937, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Raphael Tang, Crystina Zhang, Xueguang Ma, Jimmy Lin, and Ferhan Ture. 2024. Found in the middle: Permutation self-consistency improves listwise rank- ing in large language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2327-2340, Mexico City, Mexico. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  29. Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. 2023. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805. · arXiv
  30. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, Ab- hishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. Beir: A heterogeneous benchmark for zero-shot evaluation of information retrieval models. In Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks, volume 1.
  31. Wenhui Wang, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Hangbo Bao, Nan Yang, and Ming Zhou. 2020. Minilm: Deep self- attention distillation for task-agnostic compression of pre-trained transformers. Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, 33:5776-5788.
  32. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompt- ing elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  33. 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. In Proceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2287- 2308, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
  34. Yue Yu, Wei Ping, Zihan Liu, Boxin Wang, Jiaxuan You, Chao Zhang, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2024. Rankrag: Unifying context ranking with retrieval-augmented generation in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02485. · arXiv
  35. Longhui Zhang, Yanzhao Zhang, Dingkun Long, Pengjun Xie, Meishan Zhang, and Min Zhang. 2023. Rankinggpt: Empowering large language models in text ranking with progressive enhancement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16720. · arXiv
  36. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-bench and chatbot arena. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track.
  37. Honglei Zhuang, Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Ji Ma, Jing Lu, Jianmo Ni, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bendersky. 2023. 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.
  38. 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.

Authors
Niu, T., Joty, S., Liu, Y., Xiong, C., Zhou, Y., & Yavuz, S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4404344675
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
re-ranking, large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, zero-shot generalization, 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