Ranking

Modern Text-to-SQL systems generate multiple candidate SQL queries and rank them to judge a final prediction. However, existing methods face two limitations. First, they often score functionally equivalent SQL queries inconsistently despite identical execution results. Second, ranking cannot recover when the correct SQL is absent from the candidate pool. We propose R$^3$-SQL, a Text-to-SQL framework that addresses both issues through unified reward for ranking and resampling. R$^3$-SQL first groups candidates by execution result and ranks groups for consistency. To score each group, it combines a pairwise preference across groups with a pointwise utility from the best group rank and size, capturing relative preference, consistency, and candidate quality. To improve candidate recall, R$^3$-SQL introduces agentic resampling, which judges the generated candidate pool and selectively resamples when the correct SQL is likely absent. R$^3$-SQL achieves 75.03 execution accuracy on BIRD-dev, a new state of the art among methods using models with disclosed sizes, with consistent gains across five benchmarks.

We reformulate explanation quality assessment as a ranking problem rather than a generation problem. Instead of optimizing models to produce a single "best" explanation token-by-token, we train reward models to discriminate among multiple candidate explanations and learn their relative quality. Concretely, we construct per-instance candidate sets with graded quality levels and train listwise and pairwise ranking models (ListNet, LambdaRank, RankNet) to preserve ordinal structure and avoid score compression typical of pointwise regression or binary preference objectives. We observe three findings: First, ranking losses consistently outperform regression on score separation across all domains tested. Second, the optimal ranking loss depends on data characteristics: listwise objectives excel with well-separated quality tiers, while pairwise methods are more robust to noisy natural annotations. Third, when trained on carefully curated and well-structured data, small encoder models can match models that are orders of magnitude larger, suggesting that data quality matters more than model scale. Finally, when used as rewards in policy optimization, ranking-based scores enable stable convergence in settings where regression-based rewards fail entirely. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/Tankiit/PPO_Learning_to_rank

A widely cited result by Dong et al. (2021) showed that Transformers built from self-attention alone, without skip connections or feed-forward layers, suffer from rapid rank collapse: all token representations converge to a single direction. The proposed remedy was the MLP. We show that this picture, while correct in the regime studied by Dong, is incomplete in ways that matter for architectural understanding. Three results are established. First, layer normalisation is precisely affine-rank-neutral: it preserves the affine rank of the token representation set exactly. The widespread claim that LN "plays no role" is imprecise; the correct statement is sharper. Second, residual connections generically obstruct rank collapse in real Transformers such as BERT-base, in a measure-theoretic sense, without contribution from the MLP. The MLP's irreplaceable function is different: generating feature directions outside the linear span of the original token embeddings, which no stack of attention layers can produce. Third, a phenomenon distinct from rank collapse is identified: head-channel non-identifiability. After multi-head attention sums per-head outputs through the output projection, individual contributions cannot be canonically attributed to a specific head; n(H-1)d_k degrees of freedom per layer remain ambiguous when recovering a single head from the mixed signal. The MLP cannot remedy this because it acts on the post-summation signal. A constructive partial remedy is proposed: a position-gated output projection (PG-OP) at parameter overhead below 1.6% of the standard output projection. The four collapse phenomena identified in the literature -- rank collapse in depth, in width, head-channel non-identifiability, and entropy collapse -- are unified under a symmetry-breaking framework, each corresponding to a distinct symmetry of the Transformer's forward pass.

Standard evaluations of Bayesian deep learning methods assume that metric estimates are reliable, but we show this assumption fails under data scarcity. Method rankings are not only unreliable at small $n$, but also dataset-dependent in ways that point estimates cannot reveal: the same method comparison yields $P(\mathrm{MCD} \prec \mathrm{Ensemble}) = 1.000$ at $n = 50$ on one dataset and remains below $0.95$ even at $n = 500$ on another. Across the datasets we consider, no universal sample size threshold exists, which is precisely why dataset-specific posterior inference is necessary. To address this, we use a Bayesian hierarchical model with method-specific variances to treat evaluation metrics as random variables across data realizations, and we use a predictive Minimum Detectable Difference curve to assess whether an observed gap would be detectable at a given training size. Across six Bayesian deep learning methods and five regression datasets, our results show that uncertainty-aware evaluation is necessary in low-data settings, because current evidence for method superiority and predictive detectability at the same training size can diverge substantially. Our framework provides practitioners with principled tools to determine whether their evaluation data is sufficient before drawing conclusions about method superiority.

LLM leaderboards are widely used to compare models and guide deployment decisions. However, leaderboard rankings are shaped by evaluation priorities set by benchmark designers, rather than by the diverse goals and constraints of actual users and organizations. A single aggregate score often obscures how models behave across different prompt types and compositions. In this work, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the dataset used in the LMArena (formerly Chatbot Arena) benchmark and investigate this evaluation challenge by designing an interactive visualization interface as a design probe. Our analysis reveals that the dataset is heavily skewed toward certain topics, that model rankings vary across prompt slices, and that preference-based judgments are used in ways that blur their intended scope. Building on this analysis, we introduce a visualization interface that allows users to define their own evaluation priorities by selecting and weighting prompt slices and to explore how rankings change accordingly. A qualitative study suggests that this interactive approach improves transparency and supports more context-specific model evaluation, pointing toward alternative ways to design and use LLM leaderboards.

LLM fairness should be evaluated through in-situ conversational behavior rather than standardized-test Q&A benchmarks. We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable: surface-level prompt construction choices, although entirely orthogonal to the fairness question being tested, account for the majority of score variance, shift fairness conclusions in both the direction and the magnitude, and result in severe discordance in model rankings. We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue for in-situ behavior evaluation, examining how models' conversational behavior shifts when identity is varied as part of natural multi-agent interaction. Repurposing standardized-test questions as conversation seeds rather than as the evaluation instrument, we evaluate position persistence (how they hold positions, from the self-perspective) and peer receptiveness (how receptive they are to peers, from the other-perspective) across 8 million conversation transcripts spanning multiple models and identity presence configurations. In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies, a form of evidence the standardized-test paradigm does not offer.

Maximum-likelihood pairwise ranking is a com- mon computational mechanism for prioritization, reputation estimation, and comparison-driven decision support. Despite its broad use, the perturbation sensitivity of this estimator under structured changes in comparison data remains insufficiently characterized. We study this question as an applied-mathematics and computational-science problem in stability analysis. We for- mulate coordinated perturbation as a budgeted subset-selection problem over pairwise observations and introduce an Adaptive Subset Selection Attack (ASSA) as a scalable search heuristic for probing high-impact perturbation sets. Through experiments on synthetic and observed preference datasets, we show that MLE-based ranking can exhibit pronounced regime-dependent sensitivity: relatively small but coordinated perturbations may in- duce meaningful changes in output orderings, while the response profile varies across budgets and data conditions. By comparing ASSA with random, greedy, and randomized subset baselines under repeated trials, we characterize both the magnitude and the variability of perturbation-induced ranking shifts. These results position pairwise ranking sensitivity as a problem in computational reliability, numerical stability, and robustness auditing for engineering systems built on comparison-driven inference.

Recent advances in summarization research focus on improving summary quality across multiple criteria, such as completeness, conciseness, and faithfulness, by jointly optimizing these dimensions. However, these efforts largely overlook the challenge of controlling summary generation with respect to individual criteria, especially in the presence of their inherent trade-offs. For example, enhancing conciseness can compromise completeness, and vice versa. In this work, we address this gap by proposing a loss function that aligns model outputs with fine-grained, model-based evaluation scores (e.g., from FineSurE), enabling both improvement in summary quality and dimension-specific control. Our approach improves the overall quality of summaries while maintaining the ability to selectively prioritize one criterion over others. Experiments on three pretrained models (LLaMA, Qwen, and Mistral) demonstrate that our method achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art summarizers, while uniquely offering strong controllability over individual quality dimensions.

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

Everyday tasks come with a target, and pretraining models around this target is what turns them into experts. In this paper, we study target-oriented language model (LM) pretraining by introducing Neuron-Activated Graph Ranking (NAG-based Ranking), a training-free and interpretable framework for target pretraining data selection. Rather than using black-box representations, our approach directly characterizes each target input by a sparse set of high-impact neurons in any off-the-shelf LLMs. Concretely, we quantify neuron impact and select the most influential neurons across layers into a compact Neuron-Activated Graph (NAG), and rank candidate data by NAG similarity to target examples. We conduct experiments across six benchmarks, where our NAG-based Ranking improves target-oriented pretraining by 4.9% on average over random sampling, and also outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 5.3% accuracy on HellaSwag. It also remains effective under a more applicable multi-target setting, where our best setup surpasses two baselines by 1.1% and 4.1%, respectively. Furthermore, we provide a comprehensive analysis on why and how our NAG works, e.g., deactivating NAG-selected neurons (only 0.12% of all) causes a 23.5% performance collapse, and restricting NAG to the final layer incurs a 4.1% average drop, indicating that NAG captures a sparse "functional backbone" for learning target features. We release the code at https://github.com/asillycat/NAG.

Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation aims to mitigate the interference of extraneous noise by dynamically determining the necessity of retrieving supplementary passages. However, as Large Language Models evolve with increasing robustness to noise, the necessity of adaptive retrieval warrants re-evaluation. In this paper, we rethink this necessity and propose AdaRankLLM, a novel adaptive retrieval framework. To effectively verify the necessity of adaptive listwise reranking, we first develop an adaptive ranker employing a zero-shot prompt with a passage dropout mechanism, and compare its generation outcomes against static fixed-depth retrieval strategies. Furthermore, to endow smaller open-source LLMs with this precise listwise ranking and adaptive filtering capability, we introduce a two-stage progressive distillation paradigm enhanced by data sampling and augmentation techniques. Extensive experiments across three datasets and eight LLMs demonstrate that AdaRankLLM consistently achieves optimal performance in most scenarios with significantly reduced context overhead. Crucially, our analysis reveals a role shift in adaptive retrieval: it functions as a critical noise filter for weaker models to overcome their limitations, while serving as a cost-effective efficiency optimizer for stronger reasoning models.

Neural Representations for Videos (NeRV) encode entire video sequences within neural network parameters, offering an alternative paradigm to conventional video codecs. However, the convolutional decoder of NeRV remains computationally expensive and memory intensive, limiting its deployment in resource-constrained environments. This paper proposes LRConv-NeRV, an efficient NeRV variant that replaces selected dense 3x3 convolutional layers with structured low-rank separable convolutions, trained end-to-end within the decoder architecture. By progressively applying low-rank factorization from the largest to earlier decoder stages, LRConv-NeRV enables controllable trade-offs between reconstruction quality and efficiency. Extensive experiments demonstrate that applying LRConv only to the final decoder stage reduces decoder complexity by 68%, from 201.9 to 64.9 GFLOPs, and model size by 9.3%, while incurring negligible quality loss and achieving approximately 9.2% bitrate reduction. Under INT8 post-training quantization, LRConv-NeRV preserves reconstruction quality close to the dense NeRV baseline, whereas more aggressive factorization of early decoder stages leads to disproportionate quality degradation. Compared to existing work under layer-aligned settings, LRConv-NeRV achieves a more favorable efficiency versus quality trade-off, offering substantial GFLOPs and parameter reductions while maintaining higher PSNR/MS-SSIM and improved temporal stability. Temporal flicker analysis using LPIPS further shows that the proposed solution preserves temporal coherence close to the NeRV baseline, results establish LRConv-NeRV as a potential architectural alternative for efficient neural video decoding under low-precision and resource-constrained settings.

Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) has proven effective for efficient LLM evaluation on multiple-choice benchmarks, but modern LLM evaluation increasingly relies on generation tasks where outputs are scored continuously rather than marked correct/incorrect. We present a principled extension of IRT-based adaptive testing to continuous bounded scores (ROUGE, BLEU, LLM-as-a-Judge) by replacing the Bernoulli response distribution with a heteroskedastic normal distribution. Building on this, we introduce an uncertainty aware ranker with adaptive stopping criteria that achieves reliable model ranking while testing as few items and as cheaply as possible. We validate our method on five benchmarks spanning n-gram-based, embedding-based, and LLM-as-judge metrics. Our method improves ranking correlation by 0.13 $τ$ over random sampling and has 99% accuracy on confident predictions while using 2% of the items after a one-time calibration step.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as rerankers in information retrieval, yet their ranking behavior can be steered by small, natural-sounding prompts. To expose this vulnerability, we present Rank Anything First (RAF), a two-stage token optimization method that crafts concise textual perturbations to consistently promote a target item in LLM-generated rankings while remaining hard to detect. Stage 1 uses Greedy Coordinate Gradient to shortlist candidate tokens at the current position by combining the gradient of the rank-target with a readability score; Stage 2 evaluates those candidates under exact ranking and readability losses using an entropy-based dynamic weighting scheme, and selects a token via temperature-controlled sampling. RAF generates ranking-promoting prompts token-by-token, guided by dual objectives: maximizing ranking effectiveness and preserving linguistic naturalness. Experiments across multiple LLMs show that RAF significantly boosts the rank of target items using naturalistic language, with greater robustness than existing methods in both promoting target items and maintaining naturalness. These findings underscore a critical security implication: LLM-based reranking is inherently susceptible to adversarial manipulation, raising new challenges for the trustworthiness and robustness of modern retrieval systems. Our code is available at: https://github.com/glad-lab/RAF.

Large audio-language models (LALMs) are often used in tasks that involve reasoning over ordered options. An open question is whether their predictions are influenced by the order of answer choices, which would indicate a form of position bias and undermine their reliability. In this paper, we identify and analyze this problem in LALMs. We demonstrate that no model is immune to this bias through extensive experiments on six LALMs across three widely used benchmarks and their spoken counterparts. Shuffling the order of answer options can cause performance fluctuations of up to 24% and even change model rankings, raising concerns about the reliability of current evaluation practices. We also study permutation-based strategies and show that they can mitigate bias in most cases. Our work represents the first systematic investigation of this issue in LALMs, and we hope it raises awareness and motivates further research in this direction.

Efficient scheduling of large language model (LLM) inference tasks is critical for achieving low latency and high throughput, a challenge that is becoming increasingly acute with the rise of reasoning-capable LLMs whose generation lengths are highly variable. Traditional strategies like First Come, First-Serve (FCFS) often suffer from Head-of-Line (HOL) blocking, where long-running tasks delay shorter ones queued behind them. In this paper, we introduce PARS, a prompt-aware LLM task scheduler that mitigates HOL blocking by approximating shortest-job-first (SJF) scheduling through pairwise ranking with a margin ranking loss. PARS effectively predicts response-length-based task ordering directly from prompts, thereby optimizing scheduling decisions with minimal overhead. In addition, it integrates seamlessly with vLLM, a state-of-the-art LLM serving system, for the research community. Extensive experiments across multiple LLM models and real-world inference use cases, including chat, math, and code generation, demonstrate that PARS significantly reduces latency by up to 15.7x compared to the vLLM default scheduler. Cross-model evaluations demonstrate that our design generalizes effectively, allowing effective scheduling across diverse LLMs without requiring model-specific retraining.

Best-of-n sampling improves the accuracy of large language models (LLMs) and large reasoning models (LRMs) by generating multiple candidate solutions and selecting the one with the highest reward. The key challenge for reasoning tasks is designing a scoring function that can identify correct reasoning chains without access to ground-truth answers. We propose Probabilistic Confidence Selection And Ranking (PiCSAR): a simple, training-free method that scores each candidate generation using the joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer. The joint log-likelihood of the reasoning and final answer naturally decomposes into reasoning confidence and answer confidence. PiCSAR achieves substantial gains across diverse benchmarks (+10.18 on MATH500, +9.81 on AIME2025), outperforming baselines with at least 2x fewer samples in 16 out of 20 comparisons. Our analysis reveals that correct reasoning chains exhibit significantly higher reasoning and answer confidence, justifying the effectiveness of PiCSAR.

We propose a method for evaluating the robustness of widely used LLM ranking systems -- variants of a Bradley--Terry model -- to dropping a worst-case very small fraction of preference data. Our approach is computationally fast and easy to adopt. When we apply our method to matchups from popular LLM ranking platforms, including Chatbot Arena and derivatives, we find that the rankings of top-performing models can be remarkably sensitive to the removal of a small fraction of preferences; for instance, dropping just 0.003% of human preferences can change the top-ranked model on Chatbot Arena. Our robustness check identifies the specific preferences most responsible for such ranking flips, allowing for inspection of these influential preferences. We observe that the rankings derived from MT-bench preferences are notably more robust than those from Chatbot Arena, likely due to MT-bench's use of expert annotators and carefully constructed prompts. Finally, we find that neither rankings based on crowdsourced human evaluations nor those based on LLM-as-a-judge preferences are systematically more sensitive than the other.

Most statistical models for pairwise comparisons, including the Bradley-Terry (BT) and Thurstone models and many extensions, make a relatively strong assumption of stochastic transitivity. This assumption imposes the existence of an unobserved global ranking among all the players/teams/items and monotone constraints on the comparison probabilities implied by the global ranking. However, the stochastic transitivity assumption does not hold in many real-world scenarios of pairwise comparisons, especially games involving multiple skills or strategies. As a result, models relying on this assumption can have suboptimal predictive performance. In this paper, we propose a general family of statistical models for pairwise comparison data without a stochastic transitivity assumption, substantially extending the BT and Thurstone models. In this model, the pairwise probabilities are determined by a (approximately) low-dimensional skew-symmetric matrix. Likelihood-based estimation methods and computational algorithms are developed, which allow for sparse data with only a small proportion of observed pairs. Theoretical analysis shows that the proposed estimator achieves minimax-rate optimality, which adapts effectively to the sparsity level of the data. The spectral theory for skew-symmetric matrices plays a crucial role in the implementation and theoretical analysis. The proposed method's superiority against the BT model, along with its broad applicability across diverse scenarios, is further supported by simulations and real data analysis.

Ranking generative models based on the fidelity and diversity of their outputs is required to identify the best generator in a group of candidate generative AI models. To rank a group of models in a conventional centralized setting, a standard score is commonly evaluated for each involved model. The selection and design of reference-based evaluation scores have been extensively studied in centralized settings, where the reference samples are drawn from a single probability distribution. However, in practical scenarios including distributed learning contexts, reference samples are distributed across multiple clients, each potentially with a heterogeneous data distribution. In this work, we investigate the ranking of generative models in such distributed settings with heterogeneous data distributions across clients. We focus on the widely used family of kernel distance (KD) evaluation metrics. We prove that, for every kernel function, ranking models by the averaged KD scores of individual clients yields the same ordering as a centralized KD evaluation using the combined reference data from all the clients. We further extend our analysis to other popular metrics, including the Fréchet Distance (FD), for which the individual client scores could be insufficient for accurate model ranking. We present the numerical results of several experiments on standard image datasets and generative models to validate our theoretical findings regarding distributed ranking using various evaluation scores.