RankLLM: A Python Package for Reranking with LLMs

The adoption of large language models (LLMs) as rerankers in multi-stage retrieval systems has gained significant traction in academia and industry. These models refine a candidate list of retrieved documents, often through carefully designed prompts, and are typically used in applications built on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). This paper introduces RankLLM, an open-source Python package for reranking that is modular, highly configurable, and supports both proprietary and open-source LLMs in customized reranking workflows. To improve usability, RankLLM features optional integration with Pyserini for retrieval and provides integrated evaluation for multi-stage pipelines. Additionally, RankLLM includes a module for detailed analysis of input prompts and LLM responses, addressing reliability concerns with LLM APIs and non-deterministic behavior in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models. This paper presents the architecture of RankLLM, along with a detailed step-by-step guide and sample code. We reproduce results from RankGPT, LRL, RankVicuna, RankZephyr, and other recent models. RankLLM integrates with common inference frameworks and a wide range of LLMs. This compatibility allows for quick reproduction of reported results, helping to speed up both research and real-world applications. The complete repository is available at rankllm.ai, and the package can be installed via PyPI.

Centralized Selection with Preferences in the Presence of Biases

This paper considers the scenario in which there are multiple institutions, each with a limited capacity for candidates, and candidates, each with preferences over the institutions. A central entity evaluates the utility of each candidate to the institutions, and the goal is to select candidates for each institution in a way that maximizes utility while also considering the candidates' preferences. The paper focuses on the setting in which candidates are divided into multiple groups and the observed utilities of candidates in some groups are biased--systematically lower than their true utilities. The first result is that, in these biased settings, prior algorithms can lead to selections with sub-optimal true utility and significant discrepancies in the fraction of candidates from each group that get their preferred choices. Subsequently, an algorithm is presented along with proof that it produces selections that achieve near-optimal group fairness with respect to preferences while also nearly maximizing the true utility under distributional assumptions. Further, extensive empirical validation of these results in real-world and synthetic settings, in which the distributional assumptions may not hold, are presented.