Per-Query Gating of LLM Rerankers for Multi-Hop Retrieval

Few-shot selection typically assumes that reranking retrieved examples always improves performance. We challenge this view by identifying that the expensive reranking step can in fact degrade performance. Instead, we propose Training-Free Gated Reranking, which decides whether to rerank the few-shot examples based on the model's uncertainty. Extensive experiments across 8 LLMs, covering 7 NLU datasets and 9 MT domain-language combinations, demonstrate that our approach reduces computational costs by 15%-80% while improving average performance by up to 2%. These findings indicate that higher computational cost does not guarantee better performance, and that reranking is most beneficial when targeted at high-uncertainty instances.

Multi-hop retrieval failures are not uniformly distributed across queries: they cluster in structurally predictable subpopulations. We prove two results formalizing this structure. First (CWAR Reducibility): confident-failure reduction is achievable if and only if retrieval features carry mutual information about success, a condition satisfied by LLM-judge pipelines but substantially weaker in dense-only settings, explaining the AUC-AC gap between regimes. Second (Feature Regime Complementarity): no single ANN score feature achieves best predictive performance across all failure regimes; the dominant feature differs between datasets (query length on MuSiQue, hop-1 concentration on HoVer), and a constructive witness pair shows each is necessary in one regime and non-contributory in the other. We instantiate these principles in RegimeAbstain, which computes a Retrieval Confidence Score (RCS), a logistic function of up to nine query-ANN structural features, all available without any additional LLM call, and uses it to implement a calibrated abstention policy. We define the Confident-Wrong-Answer Rate (CWAR) metric and evaluate across three multi-hop benchmarks (MuSiQue, 2WikiMultiHopQA, HoVer) and two retrieval architectures (LLM-judge and dense-only), covering five failure regimes with CWAR from 14.5% to 62.1%. RCS achieves best or co-best AUC-AC in all five conditions against eight confidence baselines. On MuSiQue (LLM-judge), RCS reduces CWAR from 39.5% to 20.6% at 50% coverage (47.8% relative reduction), with ECE=0.035. A model trained on MuSiQue transfers to 2WikiMultiHopQA with only -0.5pp AUC loss, confirming the domain-agnostic structure of regime features.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as rerankers in recommender systems, with the expectation that semantic understanding will help in cold-start and long-tail regimes. We test this assumption with a five-domain benchmark that explicitly separates reranking quality from retrieval coverage. In a positive-controlled regime where the gold item is guaranteed present, calibrated LLM rerankers fail to consistently outperform strong collaborative and content baselines under natural traffic, and within-family scaling from Qwen3-8B to Qwen3-32B narrows but does not close the gap on most domains. In a retrieval-realistic regime where the gold item is not injected, the bottleneck is more severe: standard single retrievers place the gold item in a 200-item pool only 4.6-22.9% of the time, largely because 32-91% of cold-start targets are brand-new items with no training interactions. We introduce LHF, a validation-trained learned hybrid fusion layer over a multi-retriever union pool, as a retrieval-side realizability baseline. LHF is the only combiner we test that beats every single retriever on all five domains and recovers 17-61% of oracle coverage headroom on content-rich domains, but only 5-7% on collaboratively strong domains. End-to-end experiments reveal the remaining mismatch: learned non-LLM ranking exploits the LHF pool, while prompt-level LLM reranking often degrades it. LLMs exhibit pockets of semantic cold-start advantage, especially in text-rich domains when the item is already present, but this advantage is largely unreachable in current retrieve-then-rerank pipelines. We release the benchmark protocol, splits, prompts, evaluation tooling, and archived reproducibility artifacts: data at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20991039 and code at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20993306.