Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Do Large Language Models Rank Fairly? An Empirical Study on the Fairness of LLMs as Rankers

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.03192 v2 pith:LUQR6XNR submitted 2024-04-04 cs.IR cs.CL

classification cs.IRcs.CL
keywords llmsmodelsfairnessrankingempiricallanguageattributesevaluating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) in information retrieval has raised a critical reevaluation of fairness in the text-ranking models. LLMs, such as GPT models and Llama2, have shown effectiveness in natural language understanding tasks, and prior works (e.g., RankGPT) have also demonstrated that the LLMs exhibit better performance than the traditional ranking models in the ranking task. However, their fairness remains largely unexplored. This paper presents an empirical study evaluating these LLMs using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset, focusing on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms. We assess fairness from both user and content perspectives, contributing an empirical benchmark for evaluating LLMs as the fair ranker.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. How Good are LLM-based Rerankers? An Empirical Analysis of State-of-the-Art Reranking Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    On a new benchmark of post-April 2025 queries, LLM rerankers show a 5-15% performance drop compared with familiar benchmarks, and lightweight models match them on efficiency and sometimes accuracy.

  2. Position is Power: System Prompts as a Mechanism of Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs)

    cs.CY 2025-05 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Placing demographic audience information in system prompts rather than user prompts shifts sentiment and ranking outputs across six commercial LLMs, but the design confounds position with instruction content.

  3. The Scales of Justitia: A Comprehensive Survey on Safety Evaluation of LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A structured survey of LLM safety evaluation that proposes a why/what/where/how taxonomy and catalogs metrics, datasets, benchmarks, evaluators, and frameworks.

Pith tools