Does Reasoning Make Search More Fair? Comparing Fairness in Reasoning and Non-Reasoning Rerankers

Reasoning-based reranking with Large Language Models (LLMs) has shown promising improvements in text ranking. However, current methods predominantly rely on a single reasoning trajectory, resulting in rankings that are susceptible to reasoning errors and inherently constrained in modeling the multifaceted signals underlying document relevance. To resolve this dilemma, we propose MERIT-Rank(Multi-perspective Evidence and Reasoning Integration for Text Reranking), a framework that models complementary reasoning trajectories to improve reranking robustness. MERIT-Rank formulates a Multi-Trajectory Reasoning Space (MTRS) that evaluates query-document relevance from multiple perspectives and introduces a joint reranker that consolidates these reasoning paths into a unified ranking decision. We further develop Progressive Rank Policy Optimization (PRPO), a progressive training framework that stabilizes reasoning trajectories while continually improving ranking quality through staged optimization objectives. Experiments on both reasoning-intensive and traditional retrieval benchmarks show that MERIT-Rank consistently achieves superior performance over competitive baselines. The 4B model notably outperforms most 7B and even 32B rerankers on BRIGHT.

One of the many fairness definitions pursued in recent recommender system research targets mitigating demographic information encoded in model representations. Models optimized for this definition are typically evaluated on how well demographic attributes can be classified given model representations, with the (implicit) assumption that this measure accurately reflects recommendation parity, i.e., how similar recommendations given to different users are. We challenge this assumption by comparing the amount of demographic information encoded in representations with various measures of how the recommendations differ. We propose two new approaches for measuring how well demographic information can be classified given ranked recommendations. Our results from extensive testing of multiple models on one real and multiple synthetically generated datasets indicate that optimizing for fair representations positively affects recommendation parity, but also that evaluation at the representation level is not a good proxy for measuring this effect when comparing models. We also provide extensive insight into how recommendation-level fairness metrics behave for various models by evaluating their performances on numerous generated datasets with different properties.

Scoring functions are used to represent the relevance of individual documents. In modern information retrieval or recommendation systems, they are often learned from data and play a pivotal role in ranking sets of documents or items in a way that maximizes utility to a query or user. With the recent interest in algorithmic fairness, the success of scoring has naturally led to methods that learn scores that simultaneously trade off fairness and utility. In this work, we show that in stark contrast with utility-centric objectives, scoring is sub-optimal in achieving all utility-fairness trade-offs. We establish this with a series of counter-examples with a generic fairness formulation. We show that the issue persists whether we have a deterministic scoring function or a randomized one, or whether we measure fairness at the scope of a single query or across multiple queries. On the positive side, we empirically demonstrate that semi-greedy post-processing has the potential to achieve much better trade-offs, often approaching the ideal of exhaustive post-processing in a tractable way.