Masking or Mitigating? Deconstructing the Impact of Query Rewriting on Retriever Biases in RAG
This work investigates systematic biases—such as conciseness, position, verbatim matching, and redundancy—in dense retrievers within retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems, where the impact of existing query rewriting approaches remains unclear. The study introduces the first taxonomy distinguishing between query–document interaction bias and document encoding bias, and systematically evaluates the debiasing efficacy of five query augmentation methods across six retrievers. By integrating LLM-driven query rewriting, pseudo-document generation, adversarial testing, and mechanistic analysis, it reveals that different methods mitigate bias either by increasing score variance or decorrelating biased signals. Experiments show that simple LLM-based rewriting reduces bias by 54% on average but fails under adversarial conditions. No single method universally addresses all biases; performance is highly dependent on the retriever architecture, offering practical guidance for deployment choices.