Papers › Equal Ranking Quality, Different Decisions: Training Order-Consistent LLM Scorers
Equal Ranking Quality, Different Decisions: Training Order-Consistent LLM Scorers
Markus Frohmann, Mahdiyar Alavi, Elizabeth Lingg, Navid Rekabsaz
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Rerankers, reward models and multi-document QA scorers score candidate documents or responses in one LLM prompt, so each score depends on their order. Such scorers are selected on ranking quality, but their scores determine a decision: what a score threshold retains, a reader answers, or a preference model selects. However, equal ranking quality does not imply equal decisions: on passage reranking, five trained scorers within 0.010 nDCG@10 retain sets that overlap by only 0.66-0.84 when reordered. A published reranker takes the highest retained-set F1 in our comparison and still overlaps by only 0.667. No prompt-time change we test removes that order dependence: the only one that gains ranking quality leaves all three decisions unchanged. Order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT) attenuates it in the weights, training a candidate's score not to depend on the order. It holds ranking quality and leads every decision-stability measure among trained scorers on all three tasks: it flips the reader's answer on 0.125 of permutation pairs against 0.149-0.164 for three other objectives that target order. It is more stable than order-averaged distillation on 12 base models, and one OC-SFT permutation retains sets that overlap more than ten averaged off-the-shelf permutations. A comparison should therefore report what a threshold retains and a reader answers, not ranking quality alone. Code is available at https://github.com/thomsonreuters/presentation-dependence.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.26762")
Code
Syntology Ran 14 of 16 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 12 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 16 samples from 1 repository, 14 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
16 samples harvested; 14 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from thomsonreuters/presentation-dependence. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
0b18e643c678e842 · report
52ffd26e79d3940a · report
9d94581fe52f5f71 · report
a4d7d5f474a39ce8 · report
516a0a73bb992598 · report
b7956f205862a59d · report
d052ee9cfc9e1da1 · report
d0479097f346085d · report
68ba74adfebf2269 · report
cb864446516f5c03 · report
12b8497af8a4338e · report
64a0c08a1d67fc27 · report
5b507438e60abedc · report
75bc657ab9a4ae00 · report
6eeaae096d235160 · report
121652f9d430c54a · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.26762, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections