The Overthinking Predicament: When Reasoning Hurts Ranking

Document reranking is a key component in information retrieval (IR), aimed at refining initial retrieval results to improve ranking quality for downstream tasks. Recent studies—motivated by large reasoning models (LRMs)—have begun incorporating explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning into LLM-based rerankers. However, the effectiveness of such reasoning for ranking tasks remains underexplored. In this work, we present the first systematic study of reasoning in reranking across both logits-based pointwise and listwise settings, under both supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. Using diverse benchmarks, including reasoning-intensive datasets (BRIGHT) and standard IR benchmarks (BEIR), we find that reasoning-augmented rerankers consistently underperform their direct counterparts that predict rankings without CoT, despite substantially higher inference costs. Our analysis reveals three core limitations: (i) in pointwise rerankers, reasoning breaks calibration and biases models toward the positive class, raising TPR but lowering TNR, which inflates false positives and degrades ranking in negative-dominant pools; (ii) in listwise rerankers, explicit reasoning improves the fit during training but leads to higher variance and fails to improve performance in both in-domain and out-of-domain evaluations, even when reinforcement learning shortens rationales; and (iii) overall, directly fine-tuned rerankers remain more stable, effective, and robust. These findings challenge the assumption that explicit reasoning is universally beneficial for reranking. We conclude by highlighting future directions, including calibration-aware scoring for pointwise rerankers and the design of concise, targeted reasoning strategies to mitigate overfitting and overthinking in listwise rerankers.