Rank Aggregation

We study a parameterized hybrid ranker that fuses a dense embedding list and a sparse lexical list. The method has a small, explicit parameter vector: a dense prior $α\in [0,1]$, a score-versus-rank mix $λ\in [0,1]$, an RRF smoothing parameter $κ> 0$, optional list-geometry coefficients that move $α$ per query, and a router margin $τ$ that can turn sparse search off. We grid-search those ranges on SciFact train (809 queries) and freeze the chosen values on SciFact test (300). The tuned rank-score mix ($α= 0.8$, $λ= 0.75$, $κ= 20$) reaches 0.753 nDCG@10 and 0.889 recall@10, outperforming dense BGE (0.742 / 0.871) and equal-weight RRF (0.707 nDCG@10) on that test split. A list-conditioned $α$ adds +0.0006 nDCG; a sparse-off router is rejected by the same train split (any $τ$ that skipped approximately 50% of queries lost nDCG). These coefficients are dataset-specific. Equal RRF with the same models does not beat dense on a nine-zip BEIR macro-average (0.479 vs. 0.519 nDCG@10). Repeating the same train-then-freeze sweep independently on all 20 indexed units beats equal RRF on 20/20 and dense on 16/20 (unit-mean nDCG@10 0.467 vs. 0.462 dense vs. 0.420 RRF). Other corpora should reuse the ranges, not a copy of the SciFact point.

Speech-based Alzheimer's disease (AD) detection has recently benefited from multimodal foundation-model representations that integrate complementary acoustic and linguistic information. However, conventional probability averaging over these complementary classifiers is unreliable, because their posterior probabilities exhibit mismatched scales: identical values may reflect different confidence levels across models. We propose a robust rank aggregation framework that aggregates normalized prediction ranks instead of posterior probabilities. Each subject is scored by its percentile within a fixed training-cohort distribution of out-of-fold predictions; since rank ordering is invariant to monotonic transformations, this avoids probability-scale mismatch while preserving classifier confidence ordering. A confidence-gated Random Forest further corrects residual errors using clinically interpretable linguistic features, overriding the rank prediction only when the two disagree and the RF is highly confident, without additional deep model training or explicit posterior-probability calibration. On ADReSS2020 and ADReSSo2021, the method achieves accuracies of 95.83% and 90.14%, respectively, comparing favorably with previously reported results.

Ontology rankers remain useful for rare-disease diagnosis because each candidate can be traced to matched patient phenotypes. Large language models (LLMs) can generate differential diagnoses from the same patient description, but their predictions lack an equally clear evidence trail. Rather than asking which system should replace the other, we ask whether an LLM can improve the ranker without giving up its evidence. Our behavior-based fusion model examines the two ranked lists, their agreement, and the ontology support behind each candidate, and learns how much to rely on each system for the individual case. Before comparison, we remove a documented test-set leakage pathway caused by benchmark cases and ontology annotations being derived from the same publications. Across eight open LLMs, fusion improves Phenomizer Recall@1 by 7.86 percentage points on Phenopacket Store and 20.18 points on RAMEDIS. When paired with DeepSeek-V4-Flash through an API, a fusion model trained only on the other LLMs improves Recall@1 from 0.1657 to 0.2176, a 5.19-point gain, without retraining. For 90.8% of correct fused diagnoses, the disease retains candidate-level ontology evidence that can be inspected. These results show that LLMs can strengthen an established diagnostic tool without discarding the structured evidence that makes it useful.

Content-based image retrieval (CBIR) has advanced significantly with deep learning, yet effectively ranking similar images remains challenging, particularly in high-dimensional feature spaces, where pairwise distances often fail to capture contextual relationships and the semantic gap between visual features and high-level concepts persists. Manifold learning and rank-based refinement methods have emerged as complementary strategies, respectively improving feature representations and exploiting contextual information embedded in ranked lists, such as neighborhood relationships among images. However, combining these projection-based and rank-based strategies to exploit their complementary properties remains a challenging research problem. To address this, we propose a framework that combines neighbor embedding projections with rank-based manifold learning through rank aggregation. Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) generates alternative low-dimensional feature representations, and ranked lists obtained from UMAP projections and rank-based re-ranking methods are combined using the Borda Count aggregation strategy. Experiments were conducted on several public datasets using deep learning features extracted from ResNet152, Swin Transformer, and DINOv2 models. Results show that the proposed approach improves retrieval effectiveness in several scenarios, particularly when the baseline representation struggles to achieve high precision. The aggregation strategy also often improves the quality of top-ranked positions, leading to competitive Mean Average Precision (MAP) and Precision values across different datasets and feature extractors. These findings suggest that combining projection-based and rank-based manifold learning strategies through rank aggregation can provide complementary contextual information for image retrieval tasks.

Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features. We propose Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework that combines these complementary sources. Stage-1 aggregates heterogeneous comparative judgments into a consensus ranking using a rank-aggregation model that accounts for annotator reliability. Stage-2 calibrates any predictive model's scores by an isotonic projection onto the order, enforcing ordinal consistency while preserving as much of the model's quantitative information as possible. Theoretically, we show: (1) modeling annotator heterogeneity yields strictly more efficient consensus estimation than homogeneity; (2) isotonic calibration enjoys risk bounds even when the consensus ranking is misspecified; and (3) AtC asymptotically outperforms model-only assessment. Across semi-synthetic and real-world datasets, AtC consistently improves accuracy and robustness over human-only or model-only assessments. Our results bridge judgment aggregation with model-free calibration, providing a principled recipe for human-centered assessment when ground truth is costly, scarce, or unverifiable.

Credit assignment is a fundamental challenge in cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning, particularly in embodied AI settings characterized by limited and delayed feedback as well as dynamically changing numbers of active agents. We propose MARS-RA, a framework that reformulates credit assignment as a rank aggregation problem using contribution-based pairwise comparisons among agents generated by large multimodal models. This shift from absolute to relative estimation ensures robustness against noise and dynamic agent participation, converting comparison results into contribution scores for potential-based reward shaping. We provide theoretical justification for the convergence and robustness of the proposed framework, and show that Shapley values can be used as an interpretive reference. Experimental results on challenging tasks of different types indicate that MARS-RA can guide agents toward effective cooperation.

Best-of-$N$ (BoN) inference improves content consistency in zero-shot text-to-speech by selecting from $N$ candidates with an automatic speech recognition (ASR) verifier. We identify an underexplored evaluation confound: a verifier's apparent quality depends strongly on which ASR family judges it. On LibriSpeech-PC test-clean~\citep{librispeechpc} with F5-TTS~\citep{f5tts}, verifier rankings reverse across Whisper, wav2vec~2.0, and HuBERT evaluators, and same-family verifier-evaluator pairs recover 2-3$\times$ more oracle headroom than cross-family pairs despite near-identical representations (linear CKA $0.978$) -- a pattern consistent with identity- or lineage-level coupling rather than representational overlap. We propose two \textbf{cross-family rank ensembles} (rank-averaging and conjunctive max-rank) that attain the lowest mean WER across three independent evaluators -- $1.61\%$ at $N{=}10$ ($-12\%$ relative to F5-TTS) -- with no measurable degradation under automatic SIM-o/UTMOS metrics; the best single verifier drives WER from $2.06\%$ to $1.72\%$ ($-16.5\%$) under the official F5-TTS evaluator. We recommend cross-evaluator triangulation as default reporting practice.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise -- to rank responses, select models, or triage papers. Yet LLM judges are both noisy and systematically biased: they favor verbose or well-formatted answers and exhibit position effects, so simply aggregating their votes recovers a ranking of presentation, not of true quality. We study the practical goal of identifying the \topk{} items under a fixed comparison budget, and make two contributions. First, we cast judging as Bayesian inference over latent quality with explicit, judge-specific bias covariates (verbosity, position), regularized by a shrinkage prior so that the data decide which biases a given judge actually exhibits. Second, we introduce a \topk-aware active acquisition rule that chooses the next comparison to maximally reduce uncertainty about \topk{} \emph{membership}, rather than about the full ranking. On a controlled benchmark with known ground-truth quality, judged by sixteen real LLMs spanning open and proprietary families (Llama, Qwen, Phi-4, GPT-4o-mini/5.1/5.5, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus), naive aggregation plateaus at a wrong \topk{} on biased judges regardless of budget, while our bias-aware model recovers it; \topk-aware acquisition reaches this ceiling with far fewer comparisons than round-robin or a global-uncertainty (D-optimal) rule. Bias is real but heterogeneous and capability-dependent: cheap and mid-tier judges carry a strong verbosity bias that our model corrects (lifting recall from \sim$$0.5--$0.6$ to $0.84$--$1.0$), whereas the frontier judges we tested show little bias and already rank accurately, so bias-aware modeling changes little there.

From housing allocation for households experiencing homelessness to triage in emergency departments, LLMs are increasingly being considered as judges of consequential decisions that require ranking people for scarce resources. Ranking large groups simultaneously is cognitively demanding and error-prone. A natural solution, drawing on decades of social choice theory, elicits pairwise comparisons and aggregates them into a total order. However, a fundamental question remains when LLMs serve as the pairwise judge: how can a practitioner tell, before committing to a ranking, whether the LLM's judgments are sufficiently consistent to trust the result? We discuss two different ways of identifying consistency. A classical diagnostic, the coefficient of consistency $ζ$, originally developed to measure judge reliability by counting circular triads in tournament graphs, provides a cheap, model-free measure of intra-run consistency. Various standard measures of distance between rankings, for example Kendall's $τ$, can measure inter-run variability. We show, in both theory and practice, that these measures are independently valuable, and advocate for using both to assess reliability of rankings. We demonstrate the practical importance of our results across two high-stakes prioritization tasks: homelessness service allocation and emergency department triage. Three different leading LLMs have considerably different performance profiles across these two axes of consistency. We provide guidelines for how practitioners could think about measuring and assessing consistency before committing to a model for ranking or prioritization.

Feature extraction involves the identification and extraction of salient characteristics or patterns, including edges, textures, shapes, and color attributes. Contemporary feature extractors predominantly leverage deep learning architectures, such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (VITs). The availability of diverse feature extractors in the literature provides a wide range of feature representations. Features extracted from an image depend on the specific application, the chosen extractor, and its configuration. Therefore, integrating complementary information by combining distinct extractors offers a promising way to enhance performance. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), particularly Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), have emerged as powerful and widely adopted approaches for semi-supervised image classification, as they effectively leverage both labeled and unlabeled data while exploiting the underlying graph structures that capture relationships among samples. This study proposes a novel approach for GNNs in scenarios where labeled data is scarce, by integrating diverse sets of feature and graph representations derived from various extractors in classification scenarios. Experimental investigations were conducted, encompassing combinations of distinct feature and graph extractors, as well as rank aggregation strategies. The primary contributions of this work are underscored by the experimental findings, which demonstrate that the strategic combination of feature and graph representations, coupled with the application of manifold learning for graph processing, leads to significant improvements in classification accuracy across the majority of experimental conditions. Furthermore, the utilization of rank aggregation techniques to integrate features from different extractors was shown to enhance classification accuracy.

Evaluating Knowledge Graph Completion (KGC) models remains challenging because standard assessment relies on isolated rank-based metrics such as MRR, Hits$@$k, and Mean Rank, which often produce conflicting model orderings across datasets. A model that leads on MRR may trail on Hits@1, and strong performance on one dataset may not generalize to another. This fragmentation hinders comparison, enables selective reporting, and obscures real progress. We reframe KGC evaluation as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problem and present a meta-analysis of seven aggregators across five tests: consistency, cross-dataset stability, metric independence, robustness under noise, and generalizability. Each test is averaged over leave-one-model-out (LOMO) and leave-one-group-out (LOGO) removals so that reliability reflects aggregator behavior across diverse model subsets. Across tail $(h,r,?)$ and relation $(h,?,t)$ prediction, Pareto-optimal analysis identifies Z-score as the most balanced aggregator, which ranks DualE highest for tail prediction and FMS (Flow-Modulated Scoring) highest for relation prediction. A test-sensitivity analysis using the same removals shows that consistency and stability are largely removal-invariant, while generalizability and independence are the most sensitive. The framework resolves evaluation inconsistencies and offers evidence-based guidance for aggregator selection and model benchmarking in KGC.

Pairwise Ranking Prompting (PRP) elicits pairwise preference judgments from an LLM, which are then aggregated into a ranking, usually via classical sorting algorithms. However, judgments are noisy, order-sensitive, and sometimes intransitive, so sorting assumptions do not match the setting. Because sorting aims to recover a full permutation, truncating it to meet a call budget does not produce a dependable top-K. We thus reframe PRP reranking as active learning from noisy pairwise comparisons and show that active rankers are drop-in replacements that improve NDCG@10 per call in the call-constrained regime. Our noise-robust framework also introduces a randomized-direction oracle that uses a single LLM call per pair. This approach converts systematic position bias into zero-mean noise, enabling unbiased aggregate ranking without the cost of bidirectional calls.

Ranking LLMs via pairwise human feedback underpins current leaderboards for open-ended tasks, such as creative writing and problem-solving. We analyze ~89K comparisons in 116 languages from 52 LLMs from Arena, and show that the best-fit global Bradley-Terry (BT) ranking is misleading. Nearly 2/3 of the decisive votes cancel out, and even the top 50 models according to the global BT ranking are statistically indistinguishable (pairwise win probabilities are at most 0.53 within the top 50 models). We trace this failure to strong, structured heterogeneity of opinions across language, task, and time. Moreover, we find an important characteristic - language plays a key role. Grouping by language (and families) increases the agreement of votes massively, resulting in two orders of magnitude higher spread in the ELO scores (i.e., very consistent rankings). What appears as global noise is in fact a mixture of coherent but conflicting subpopulations. To address such heterogeneity in supervised machine learning, we introduce the framework of $(λ, ν)$-portfolios, which are small sets of models that achieve a prediction error at most $λ$, "covering" at least a $ν$ fraction of users. We formulate this as a variant of the set cover problem and provide guarantees using the VC dimension of the underlying set system. On the Arena data, our algorithms recover just 5 distinct BT rankings that cover over 96% of votes at a modest $λ$, compared to the 21% coverage by the global ranking. We also provide a portfolio of 6 LLMs that cover twice as many votes as the top-6 LLMs from a global ranking. We further construct portfolios for a classification problem on the COMPAS dataset using an ensemble of fairness-regularized classification models and show that these portfolios can be used to detect blind spots in the data, which might be of independent interest to policymakers.

Sample-level rankings are increasingly used in data-centric NLP for analysis, filtering, debugging, and curation, yet existing pipelines typically score training examples pointwise and rank them as if they were independent. This assumption is fragile in the presence of exact duplicates, near-duplicates, paraphrases, and other redundant structure common in NLP corpora, where stochastic training can make highly similar examples receive unstable relative orderings across random seeds. We study stable sample-level ranking under redundancy and propose \textsc{SCARV}, a modular aggregation framework that operates on top of an existing scoring proxy. \textsc{SCARV} combines robust multi-seed aggregation with a structure-aware aggregation/allocation step over redundancy clusters. Across synthetic redundancy, naturally mined QQP redundancy, multiple proxy families, several NLP tasks, and end-to-end DistilBERT fine-tuning, \textsc{SCARV} substantially improves over bare proxy rankings in global and local stability and yields more reproducible ranking-based decisions such as subset selection and suspicious-example retrieval. Our decomposition and compute-aware frontier sharpen the mechanism: robust multi-seed aggregation is the dominant generic stabilizer, while the structure-aware component adds value mainly under low aggregation budgets or when redundancy clusters are informative, naturally occurring, or sufficiently covered. These results position \textsc{SCARV} not as a universal data selector or a universally dominant replacement for seed-only aggregation, but as a stability-oriented aggregation layer for proxy-induced rankings in redundant NLP datasets.

Existing QA benchmarks typically assume distinct documents with minimal overlap, yet real-world retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems operate on corpora such as financial reports, legal codes, and patents, where information is highly redundant and documents exhibit strong inter-document similarity. This mismatch undermines evaluation validity: retrievers can be unfairly undervalued even when they retrieve documents that provide sufficient evidence, because redundancy across documents is not accounted for in evaluation. On the other hand, retrievers that perform well on standard benchmarks often generalize poorly to real-world corpora with highly similar and redundant documents. We present RARE (Redundancy-Aware Retrieval Evaluation), a framework for constructing realistic benchmarks by (i) decomposing documents into atomic facts to enable precise redundancy tracking and (ii) enhancing LLM-based data generation with CRRF. RAG benchmark data usually requires multiple quality criteria, but LLMs often yield trivial outputs. CRRF scores criteria separately and fuses decisions by rank, improving the reliability of generated data. Applying RARE to Finance, Legal, and Patent corpora, we introduce RedQA, where a strong retriever baseline drops from 66.4% PerfRecall@10 on 4-hop General-Wiki to 5.0-27.9% PerfRecall@10 at 4-hop depth, revealing robustness gaps that current benchmarks fail to capture. RARE enables practitioners to build domain-specific RAG evaluations that faithfully reflect real-world deployment conditions.