Does Reasoning Make Search More Fair? Comparing Fairness in Reasoning and Non-Reasoning Rerankers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While reasoning rerankers, such as Rank1, have demonstrated strong abilities in improving ranking relevance, it is unclear how they perform on other retrieval qualities such as fairness. We conduct the first systematic comparison of fairness between reasoning and non-reasoning rerankers. Using the TREC 2022 Fair Ranking Track dataset, we evaluate six reranking models across multiple retrieval settings and demographic attributes. Our findings demonstrate reasoning neither improve nor harm fairness compared to non-reasoning approaches. Our fairness metric, Attention-Weighted Rank Fairness (AWRF) remained stable (0.33-0.35) across all models, even as relevance varies substantially (nDCG 0.247-1.000). Demographic breakdown analysis revealed fairness gaps for geographic attributes regardless of model architecture. These results indicate that future work in specializing reasoning models to be aware of fairness attributes could lead to improvements, as current implementations preserve the fairness characteristics of their input ranking.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Mar 2026.
Builds on
20 of 36 references.
References · 20
- 2021BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Modelscited by 1,225
- 2025Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Modelscited by 1,175
- 2020Document Ranking with a Pretrained Sequence-to-Sequence Modelcited by 373
- 2023Fine-Tuning LLaMA for Multi-Stage Text Retrievalcited by 271
- 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 189
- 2024BRIGHT: A Realistic and Challenging Benchmark for Reasoning-Intensive Retrievalcited by 153
- 2023RankZephyr: Effective and Robust Zero-Shot Listwise Reranking is a Breeze!cited by 151
- 2017FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithmcited by 113
- 2023Split and Merge: Aligning Position Biases in LLM-based Evaluatorscited by 71
- 2017Multisided Fairness for Recommendationcited by 69
- 2025Rank1: Test-Time Compute for Reranking in Information Retrievalcited by 68
- 2025Rank-R1: Enhancing Reasoning in LLM-based Document Rerankers via Reinforcement Learningcited by 58
8 more
- 2020Evaluating Stochastic Rankings with Expected Exposurecited by 53
- 2025ReasonRank: Empowering Passage Ranking with Strong Reasoning Abilitycited by 39
- 2023Fairness and Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: a Multidisciplinary Surveycited by 30
- 2025Rank-K: Test-Time Reasoning for Listwise Rerankingcited by 28
- 2019Quantifying the Impact of User Attention on Fair Group Representation in Ranked Listscited by 24
- 2024Overview of the TREC 2023 NeuCLIR Trackcited by 17
- 2023Overview of the TREC 2022 Fair Ranking Trackcited by 7
- 2025Implicit Bias-Like Patterns in Reasoning Modelscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Rethinking Reasoning in Document Ranking: Why Chain-of-Thought Falls Short
- 2026Think Thrice Before Reranking: Multi-perspective Evidence and Reasoning Integration for Text Reranking
- 2024ReasoningRank: Teaching Student Models to Rank through Reasoning-Based Knowledge Distillation
- 2025Don't "Overthink" Passage Reranking: Is Reasoning Truly Necessary?
- 2024Towards Fair RAG: On the Impact of Fair Ranking in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
- 2024Does RAG Introduce Unfairness in LLMs? Evaluating Fairness in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
- 2025InsertRank: LLMs can reason over BM25 scores to Improve Listwise Reranking
- 2026Stop Overthinking: Unlocking Efficient Listwise Reranking with Minimal Reasoning