Don't "Overthink" Passage Reranking: Is Reasoning Truly Necessary?
Abstract
Reasoning-based rerankers using Large Language Models do not improve accuracy compared to standard rerankers and are outperformed even when their reasoning process is disabled due to overly polarized relevance scores.
With the growing success of reasoning models across complex natural language tasks, researchers in the Information Retrieval (IR) community have begun exploring how similar reasoning capabilities can be integrated into passage rerankers built on Large Language Models (LLMs). These methods typically employ an LLM to produce an explicit, step-by-step reasoning process before arriving at a final relevance prediction. But, does reasoning actually improve reranking accuracy? In this paper, we dive deeper into this question, studying the impact of the reasoning process by comparing reasoning-based pointwise rerankers (ReasonRR) to standard, non-reasoning pointwise rerankers (StandardRR) under identical training conditions, and observe that StandardRR generally outperforms ReasonRR. Building on this observation, we then study the importance of reasoning to ReasonRR by disabling its reasoning process (ReasonRR-NoReason), and find that ReasonRR-NoReason is surprisingly more effective than ReasonRR. Examining the cause of this result, our findings reveal that reasoning-based rerankers are limited by the LLM's reasoning process, which pushes it toward polarized relevance scores and thus fails to consider the partial relevance of passages, a key factor for the accuracy of pointwise rerankers.
Community
We investigate the necessity of the reasoning process for passage rerankers built on LLMs.
- We find that under identical training setups, there is no advantage of the reasoning process for pointwise reranking.
- At the 7B scale, if we disable reasoning from a reasoning reranker, we find that the reasoning reranker becomes more effective.
- Our analysis suggests that the reasoning process pushes the reranker towards polarized scores, hurting its ability to rank documents properly.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- Rank-K: Test-Time Reasoning for Listwise Reranking (2025)
- ReasonIR: Training Retrievers for Reasoning Tasks (2025)
- RaDeR: Reasoning-aware Dense Retrieval Models (2025)
- Distillation and Refinement of Reasoning in Small Language Models for Document Re-ranking (2025)
- JudgeLRM: Large Reasoning Models as a Judge (2025)
- When Reasoning Beats Scale: A 1.5B Reasoning Model Outranks 13B LLMs as Discriminator (2025)
- Scaling Reasoning can Improve Factuality in Large Language Models (2025)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment:
@librarian-bot
recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper