Finally,the affinity features are used torecalculate the similarityscores between the query and the top-K images for re-ranking of the latter.

Recent developments in Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) allow large language models (LLMs) to function as implicit ranking models by maximizing the margin between preferred and non-preferred responses. In practice, user feedback on such lists typically involves identifying a few relevant items in context rather than providing detailed pairwise comparisons for every possible item pair. Moreover, many complex information retrieval tasks, such as conversational agents and summarization systems, critically depend on ranking the highest-quality outputs at the top, emphasizing the need to support natural and flexible forms of user feedback. To address the challenge of limited and sparse pairwise feedback in the in-context setting, we propose an In-context Ranking Preference Optimization (IRPO) framework that directly optimizes LLMs based on ranking lists constructed during inference. To further capture flexible forms of feedback, IRPO extends the DPO objective by incorporating both the relevance of items and their positions in the list. Modeling these aspects jointly is non-trivial, as ranking metrics are inherently discrete and non-differentiable, making direct optimization difficult. To overcome this, IRPO introduces a differentiable objective based on positional aggregation of pairwise item preferences, enabling effective gradient-based optimization of discrete ranking metrics. We further provide theoretical insights showing that IRPO (i) automatically emphasizes items with greater disagreement between the model and the reference ranking, and (ii) links its gradient to an importance sampling estimator, yielding an unbiased estimator with reduced variance. Empirical results show IRPO outperforms standard DPO approaches in ranking performance, highlighting its effectiveness in aligning LLMs with direct in-context ranking preferences.

Can a recommendation model be self-aware? This paper investigates the recommender's self-awareness by quantifying its uncertainty, which provides a label-free estimation of its performance. Such self-assessment can enable more informed understanding and decision-making before the recommender engages with any users. To this end, we propose an intuitive and effective method, probability-based List Distribution uncertainty (LiDu). LiDu measures uncertainty by determining the probability that a recommender will generate a certain ranking list based on the prediction distributions of individual items. We validate LiDu's ability to represent model self-awareness in two settings: (1) with a matrix factorization model on a synthetic dataset, and (2) with popular recommendation algorithms on real-world datasets. Experimental results show that LiDu is more correlated with recommendation performance than a series of label-free performance estimators. Additionally, LiDu provides valuable insights into the dynamic inner states of models throughout training and inference. This work establishes an empirical connection between recommendation uncertainty and performance, framing it as a step towards more transparent and self-evaluating recommender systems.

The recent explosion of large language models (LLMs), each with its own general or specialized strengths, makes scalable, reliable benchmarking more urgent than ever. Standard practices nowadays face fundamental trade-offs: closed-ended question-based benchmarks (eg MMLU) struggle with saturation as newer models emerge, while crowd-sourced leaderboards (eg Chatbot Arena) rely on costly and slow human judges. Recently, automated methods (eg LLM-as-a-judge) shed light on the scalability, but risk bias by relying on one or a few "authority" models. To tackle these issues, we propose Decentralized Arena (dearena), a fully automated framework leveraging collective intelligence from all LLMs to evaluate each other. It mitigates single-model judge bias by democratic, pairwise evaluation, and remains efficient at scale through two key components: (1) a coarse-to-fine ranking algorithm for fast incremental insertion of new models with sub-quadratic complexity, and (2) an automatic question selection strategy for the construction of new evaluation dimensions. Across extensive experiments across 66 LLMs, dearena attains up to 97% correlation with human judgements, while significantly reducing the cost. Our code and data will be publicly released on https://github.com/maitrix-org/de-arena.

Rank aggregation with pairwise comparisons is widely encountered in sociology, politics, economics, psychology, sports, etc . Given the enormous social impact and the consequent incentives, the potential adversary has a strong motivation to manipulate the ranking list. However, the ideal attack opportunity and the excessive adversarial capability cause the existing methods to be impractical. To fully explore the potential risks, we leverage an online attack on the vulnerable data collection process. Since it is independent of rank aggregation and lacks effective protection mechanisms, we disrupt the data collection process by fabricating pairwise comparisons without knowledge of the future data or the true distribution. From the game-theoretic perspective, the confrontation scenario between the online manipulator and the ranker who takes control of the original data source is formulated as a distributionally robust game that deals with the uncertainty of knowledge. Then we demonstrate that the equilibrium in the above game is potentially favorable to the adversary by analyzing the vulnerability of the sampling algorithms such as Bernoulli and reservoir methods. According to the above theoretical analysis, different sequential manipulation policies are proposed under a Bayesian decision framework and a large class of parametric pairwise comparison models. For attackers with complete knowledge, we establish the asymptotic optimality of the proposed policies. To increase the success rate of the sequential manipulation with incomplete knowledge, a distributionally robust estimator, which replaces the maximum likelihood estimation in a saddle point problem, provides a conservative data generation solution. Finally, the corroborating empirical evidence shows that the proposed method manipulates the results of rank aggregation methods in a sequential manner.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) effectively addresses issues of static knowledge and hallucination in large language models. Existing studies mostly focus on question scenarios with clear user intents and concise answers. However, it is prevalent that users issue broad, open-ended queries with diverse sub-intents, for which they desire rich and long-form answers covering multiple relevant aspects. To tackle this important yet underexplored problem, we propose a novel RAG framework, namely RichRAG. It includes a sub-aspect explorer to identify potential sub-aspects of input questions, a multi-faceted retriever to build a candidate pool of diverse external documents related to these sub-aspects, and a generative list-wise ranker, which is a key module to provide the top-k most valuable documents for the final generator. These ranked documents sufficiently cover various query aspects and are aware of the generator's preferences, hence incentivizing it to produce rich and comprehensive responses for users. The training of our ranker involves a supervised fine-tuning stage to ensure the basic coverage of documents, and a reinforcement learning stage to align downstream LLM's preferences to the ranking of documents. Experimental results on two publicly available datasets prove that our framework effectively and efficiently provides comprehensive and satisfying responses to users.

Ranking passages by prompting a large language model (LLM) can achieve promising performance in modern information retrieval (IR) systems. A common approach is to sort the ranking list by prompting LLMs for pairwise comparison. However, sorting-based methods require consistent comparisons to correctly sort the passages, which we show that LLMs often violate. We identify two kinds of intrinsic inconsistency in LLM-based pairwise comparisons: order inconsistency which leads to conflicting results when switching the passage order, and transitive inconsistency which leads to non-transitive triads among all preference pairs. In this paper, we propose LLM-RankFusion, an LLM-based ranking framework that mitigates these inconsistencies and produces a robust ranking list. LLM-RankFusion mitigates order inconsistency using in-context learning (ICL) to demonstrate order-agnostic comparisons and calibration to estimate the underlying preference probability between two passages. We then address transitive inconsistency by aggregating the ranking results from multiple rankers. In our experiments, we empirically show that LLM-RankFusion can significantly reduce inconsistent pairwise comparison results, and improve the ranking quality by making the final ranking list more robust.