analiza aiqbench
This research identifies a critical flaw in current LLM scoring systems where identical ranking quality metrics mask significant instability in actual decision-making outcomes when input order changes. The authors introduce Order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT), a training method that embeds permutation invariance directly into model weights, thereby ensuring that retention sets and reader answers remain stable regardless of candidate ordering. For practitioners deploying reward models or rerankers, this work shifts the evaluation focus from abstract quality scores to concrete decision stability, offering a more robust solution for production environments.
Equal Ranking Quality, Different Decisions: Training Order-Consistent LLM Scorers
arXiv:2608.26762v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rerankers, reward models and multi-document QA scorers score candidate documents or responses in one LLM prompt, so each score depends on their order. Such scorers are selected on ranking quality, but their scores determine a decision: what a score threshold retains, a reader answers, or a preference model selects. However, equal ranking quality does not imply equal decisions: on passage reranking, five trained scorers within 0.010 nDCG@10 retain sets that overlap by only 0.66-0.84 when reordered. A published reranker takes the highest retained-set F1 in our comparison and still overlaps by only 0.667. No prompt-time change we test removes that order dependence: the only one that gains ranking quality leaves all three decisions unchanged. Order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT) attenuates it in the weights, training a candidate's score not to depend on the order. It holds ranking quality and leads every decision-stability measure among trained scorers on all three tasks: it flips the reader's answer on 0.125 of permutation pairs against 0.149-0.164 for three other objectives that target order. It is more stable than order-averaged distillation on 12 base models, and one OC-SFT permutation retains sets that overlap more than ten averaged off-the-shelf permutations. A comparison should therefore report what a threshold retains and a reader answers, not ranking quality alone. Code is available at https://github.com/thomsonreuters/presentation-dependence.
Abstract:Rerankers, reward models and multi-document QA scorers score candidate documents or responses in one LLM prompt, so each score depends on their order. Such scorers are selected on ranking quality, but their scores determine a decision: what a score threshold retains, a reader answers, or a preference model selects. However, equal ranking quality does not imply equal decisions: on passage reranking, five trained scorers within 0.010 nDCG@10 retain sets that overlap by only 0.66-0.84 when reordered. A published reranker takes the highest retained-set F1 in our comparison and still overlaps by only 0.667. No prompt-time change we test removes that order dependence: the only one that gains ranking quality leaves all three decisions unchanged. Order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT) attenuates it in the weights, training a candidate's score not to depend on the order. It holds ranking quality and leads every decision-stability measure among trained scorers on all three tasks: it flips the reader's answer on 0.125 of permutation pairs against 0.149-0.164 for three other objectives that target order. It is more stable than order-averaged distillation on 12 base models, and one OC-SFT permutation retains sets that overlap more than ten averaged off-the-shelf permutations. A comparison should therefore report what a threshold retains and a reader answers, not ranking quality alone. Code is available at this https URL.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.26762 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.26762v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26762 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 317 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026
Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026
Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026
Frontier Risk Report (February to March 2026)
METR · 19 mai 2026