mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Ranking Blind Spot: Decision Hijacking in LLM-based Text Ranking

arXiv 2509.18575 ↗First posted 23 Sep 2025cs.IR cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in information retrieval tasks like passage ranking. Our research examines how instruction-following capabilities in LLMs interact with multi-document comparison tasks, identifying what we term the "Ranking Blind Spot", a characteristic of LLM decision processes during comparative evaluation. We analyze how this ranking blind spot affects LLM evaluation systems through two approaches: Decision Objective Hijacking, which alters the evaluation goal in pairwise ranking systems, and Decision Criteria Hijacking, which modifies relevance standards across ranking schemes. These approaches demonstrate how content providers could potentially influence LLM-based ranking systems to affect document positioning. These attacks aim to force the LLM ranker to prefer a specific passage and rank it at the top. Malicious content providers can exploit this weakness, which helps them gain additional exposure by attacking the ranker. In our experiment, We empirically show that the proposed attacks are effective in various LLMs and can be generalized to multiple ranking schemes. We apply these attack to realistic examples to show their effectiveness. We also found stronger LLMs are more vulnerable to these attacks. Our code is available at: https://github.com/blindspotorg/RankingBlindSpot

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2025.

Builds on

22 of 43 references.

References · 22

  1. 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
  2. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  3. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
  4. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  5. 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
  6. 2023Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applicationscited by 605
  7. 2024The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructionscited by 493
  8. 2023Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectorscited by 486
  9. 2023A Survey on Large Language Models for Recommendationcited by 379
  10. 2023Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Rankers for Recommender Systemscited by 309
  11. 2023Large Language Models are Effective Text Rankers with Pairwise Ranking Promptingcited by 307
  12. 2020Overview of the TREC 2019 deep learning trackcited by 286
10 more
  1. 2021Overview of the TREC 2020 deep learning trackcited by 196
  2. 2022Improving Passage Retrieval with Zero-Shot Question Generationcited by 165
  3. 2024Coercing LLMs to do and reveal (almost) anythingcited by 89
  4. 2023From Prompt Injections to SQL Injection Attacks: How Protected is Your LLM-Integrated Web Application?cited by 55
  5. 2022PRADA: Practical Black-Box Adversarial Attacks against Neural Ranking Modelscited by 44
  6. 2024Adversarial Search Engine Optimization for Large Language Modelscited by 40
  7. 2022Order-Disorder: Imitation Adversarial Attacks for Black-box Neural Ranking Modelscited by 37
  8. 2020One word at a time: adversarial attacks on retrieval modelscited by 23
  9. 2023Topic-oriented Adversarial Attacks against Black-box Neural Ranking Modelscited by 18
  10. 2024LLM-RankFusion: Mitigating Intrinsic Inconsistency in LLM-based Rankingcited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.