How Calibration Content Shapes Attention-Based Reranking
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Attention-based rerankers score documents by aggregating query-to-document attention and subtracting a null-query calibration pass to remove positional and structural bias. Although widely used, this calibration assumes that the null pass removes irrelevant signal from each document. We show that modern prompt content, e.g. constraints, instructions, personas, and demonstrations can violate this assumption when it enters the scoring readout, making the null pass relevance-aware rather than null. We find that calibration is especially harmful when applied to prompts containing longer, more detailed instructions as the null-pass step removes relevant signal. Based on these findings, we propose interpolated null calibration, a training-free modification that controls how much of the instruction content enters the null baseline. It recovers attention-based reranking performance on instruction-heavy tasks where standard calibration fails, while preserving calibration's benefits when the null pass remains relevance-agnostic. On instruction heavy tasks, the recovered rankings surpass generative rerankers. We also show that in-context demonstrations improve attention-based reranking with little calibration interference, since demonstrations act only through the query pass and leave the null pass unchanged.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2026.
Builds on
18 of 28 references.
References · 18
- 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,824
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
- 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
- 2021BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Modelscited by 1,252
- 2021Unsupervised Dense Information Retrieval with Contrastive Learningcited by 1,216
- 2022Contrastive Decoding: Open-ended Text Generation as Optimizationcited by 609
- 2023Large Language Models are Effective Text Rankers with Pairwise Ranking Promptingcited by 307
- 2021Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn't Always Rightcited by 263
- 2024FollowIR: Evaluating and Teaching Information Retrieval Models to Follow Instructionscited by 69
- 2024Attention in Large Language Models Yields Efficient Zero-Shot Re-Rankerscited by 43
- 2024INSTRUCTIR: A Benchmark for Instruction Following of Information Retrieval Modelscited by 33
- 2025Query-Focused Retrieval Heads Improve Long-Context Reasoning and Re-rankingcited by 31
6 more
- 2023NevIR: Negation in Neural Information Retrievalcited by 29
- 2025Rank-K: Test-Time Reasoning for Listwise Rerankingcited by 29
- 2024MAIR: A Massive Benchmark for Evaluating Instructed Retrievalcited by 23
- 2026ReAttn: Improving Attention-based Re-ranking via Attention Re-weightingcited by 5
- 2025Contrastive Retrieval Heads Improve Attention-Based Re-Rankingcited by 4
- 2026HeadRank: Decoding-Free Passage Reranking via Preference-Aligned Attention Headscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.