FRESCO: Benchmarking and Optimizing Re-rankers for Evolving Semantic Conflict in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Organizations: Meta Superintelligence Labs · UCLA
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a key approach to mitigating the temporal staleness of large language models (LLMs) by grounding responses in up-to-date evidence. Within the RAG pipeline, re-rankers play a pivotal role in selecting the most useful documents from retrieved candidates. However, existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate re-rankers in static settings and do not adequately assess performance under evolving information -- a critical gap, as real-world systems often must choose among temporally different pieces of evidence. To address this limitation, we introduce FRESCO (Factual Recency and Evolving Semantic COnflict), a benchmark for evaluating re-rankers in temporally dynamic contexts. By pairing recency-seeking queries with historical Wikipedia revisions, FRESCO tests whether re-rankers can prioritize factually recent evidence while maintaining semantic relevance. Our evaluation reveals a consistent failure mode across existing re-rankers: a strong bias toward older, semantically rich documents, even when they are factually obsolete. We further investigate an instruction optimization framework to mitigate this issue. By identifying Pareto-optimal instructions that balance Evolving and Non-Evolving Knowledge tasks, we obtain gains of up to 27% on Evolving Knowledge tasks while maintaining competitive performance on Non-Evolving Knowledge tasks.
Figures & tables
| Model | MAP | MRR@5 | MRR@10 | nDCG@5 | nDCG@10 | Hit Rate@5 | Hit Rate@10 | Obsolete% | |
| Explicitly Recency-Seeking Queries | MonoT5 | 26.56 | 21.72 | 24.59 | 26.28 | 33.29 | 41.03 | 62.74 | 89.75 |
| RankT5 | 38.85 | 35.14 | 37.37 | 40.21 | 45.60 | 55.52 | 72.17 | 90.24 | |
| UPR | 35.69 | 32.86 | 34.34 | 36.69 | 40.47 | 52.93 | 64.00 | 86.18 | |
| RankGPT(gpt-3.5) | 33.04 | 30.98 | 32.16 | 41.16 | 43.92 | 71.16 | 79.50 | 87.99 | |
| RankGPT(gpt-4o) | 49.51 | 49.38 | 49.49 | 62.30 | 62.55 | 98.93 | 99.67 | 90.44 | |
| RankVicuna | 38.14 | 34.32 | 36.48 | 38.33 | 43.62 | 50.55 | 67.09 | 89.29 |
| Method | ||||||
| MAP | MRR@10 | nDCG@10 | MAP | MRR@10 | nDCG@10 | |
| Base Model (Qwen3-Reranker-8B) | 62.41 | 62.17 | 70.45 | 60.93 | 77.73 | 79.68 |
| Temporal-Aware Models | ||||||
| TempRALM ( Gade et al., 2025 ) | 77.79 | 77.69 | 82.73 | 40.32 | 40.11 | 58.29 |
| FreshPrompt ( Vu et al., 2024 ) | 57.64 | 57.68 | 66.26 | 61.36 | 79.46 | 80.80 |
| MRAG ( Siyue et al., 2024 ) | 78.41 | 77.88 | 80.85 | 59.18 | 76.65 | 78.63 |
| Inst. | ||
| Base | 5.56 | 31.70 |
| Opt. | 5.83 | 33.40 |
| Method | ||
| Pareto Solution 1 | 79.20 | 59.41 |
| Pareto Solution 4 | 68.88 | 62.27 |
| Pareto Solution 1 (w/o Mut.) | 76.59 | 60.53 |
| Pareto Solution 4 (w/o Mut.) | 65.26 | 62.44 |
| Pareto Solution 1 (w/o Cross.) | 77.09 | 59.43 |
| Pareto Solution 4 (w/o Cross.) | 62.60 | 62.23 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Round | Operator | Instruction / Gradient |
| Round 0 | Initial Instruction | Given a web search query, retrieve relevant passages that answer the query. |
| Round 1 | Mutation | … Instruction ( ): Given a web search query, retrieve relevant passages that answer the query. Gradient ( in Equation 4 ): The current prompt “Given a web search query, retrieve relevant passages that answer the query” may not be specific enough to guide the model to prioritize the most up-to-date and accurate information, leading to irrelevant or outdated documents being ranked higher than the positive documents. This lack of specificity can cause the model to focus on general relevance rather than the exact information being queried, resulting in incorrect rankings. Derived Instruction ( in Equation 5 ): Given a specific query, retrieve the most relevant and up-to-date passage that directly answers the question, prioritizing information that is both accurate and current as of the query timestamp. … |
| …(Round optimization steps) … | ||
| Round 4 | Mutation | … Instruction ( ): Given a specific query, retrieve the most relevant and up-to-date passage that directly answers the question, prioritizing information that is both accurate and current as of the query timestamp. Gradient ( in Equation 4 ): The current prompt lacks specificity regarding the handling of out-of-date or less relevant information, which might lead the model to prioritize documents based on their general relevance to the query rather than their accuracy or up-to-dateness, as indicated by the provided timestamp or other temporal cues. This could cause the model to assign higher scores to negative documents that, although less current or less accurate, contain closely related keywords or topics, thus overriding the importance of recency and factual precision in the scoring process. Derived Instruction ( in Equation 5 ): Given a specific query, retrieve the most relevant and up-to-date passage that directly answers the question, prioritizing information that is both accurate and current as of the query timestamp, while considering the temporal relevance of the documents and favoring those with more recent timestamps when the query implies a need for the latest information. … |
| Crossover | … Instruction A ( in Equation 6 ): Given a specific query, retrieve the most relevant and up-to-date passage that directly answers the question, prioritizing information that is both accurate and current as of the query timestamp. Instruction B ( in Equation 6 ): Given a web search query that may require the most current, specific, or nuanced information, retrieve the most relevant and up-to-date passage that directly answers the query. Ensure the information is not only accurate and reflects the latest developments or facts related to the query but also consider the context and intent behind the query to provide the most appropriate response, prioritizing understanding over mere keyword matching. Derived Instruction ( in Equation 6 ): Given a web search query that may require the most current, specific, or nuanced information, retrieve the most relevant and up-to-date passage that directly answers the question. Prioritize information that is both accurate and current as of the query timestamp. Additionally, consider the context and intent behind the query to provide the most appropriate response, ensuring the answer is not just a keyword match but a thoughtful and informed reply that reflects the latest developments or facts related to the query. … | |
| …(Round optimization steps) … | ||
| Method | ||||||
| MAP | MRR@10 | nDCG@10 | MAP | MRR@10 | nDCG@10 | |
| Base Model | 15.51 | 13.25 | 19.26 | 28.92 | 38.46 | 48.78 |
| Temporal-Aware Models | ||||||
| TempRALM ( Gade et al., 2025 ) | 19.97 | 17.78 | 23.48 | 26.08 | 31.19 | 43.31 |
| FreshPrompt ( Vu et al., 2024 ) | 21.42 | 19.05 | 24.50 | 28.59 | 40.05 | 48.31 |
| MRAG ( Siyue et al., 2024 ) | 19.40 | 17.31 | 25.16 | 28.60 | 38.12 | 48.11 |
| Model | Created by | Release Date | Hosted by | Availability Type | Model Size |
| MonoT5 ( Nogueira et al., 2020 ) | Nogueira et al. (2020) | 03/14/2020 | Huggingface | Open Weight | 220M (T5-base) |
| RankT5 ( Zhuang et al., 2023 ) | Zhuang et al. (2023) | 10/12/2022 | Huggingface | Open Weight | 220M (T5-base) |
| UPR ( Sachan et al., 2022 ) | Sachan et al. (2022) | 04/03/2023 | Huggingface | Open Weight | 220M (T5-base) |
| RankGPT ( Sun et al., 2023 ) | Sun et al. (2023) | 04/19/2023 | OpenAI | Proprietary | N/A |
| RankVicuna ( Pradeep et al., 2023a ) | Pradeep et al. (2023a) | 09/26/2023 | Huggingface | Open Weight | 7B |
| RankZephyr ( Pradeep et al., 2023b ) | Pradeep et al. (2023b) | 12/05/2023 | Huggingface | Open Weight | 7B |
LLM Reranking
Large language model reranking uses LLMs to reorder retrieved documents or candidate outputs by relevance, usefulness, or task-specific criteria.
See all 132 papers