As It Was: Aligning LLM Search Evaluation with Historical User Preferences

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01040v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2026 15:05:10 GMT
• Title: As It Was: Aligning LLM Search Evaluation with Historical User Preferences
• Abstract summary: We introduce a behavior-grounded LLM judge that augments each search page with a lightweight and auditable behavioral prior.<n>In a music search evaluation at Spotify, the behavior-grounded judge achieves stronger alignment with user preferences.<n>On a multilingual human-judged dataset spanning five languages, grounding further increases correlation with human relevance judgments by 15%.
• Score: 10.704343230963877
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large-scale search systems evolve faster than human quality assurance can scale, especially for long-tail intents and multilingual queries. LLM-as-a-judge approaches provide a scalable alternative for evaluating the relevance of search engine result pages (SERPs), but judgments based solely on semantic similarity or world knowledge can drift from actual user preferences, particularly for ambiguous queries. We introduce a behavior-grounded LLM judge that augments each SERP item with a lightweight and auditable behavioral prior in the form of a Query-Relevance-Impressions (QRI) card. Each card summarizes how users have historically interacted with similar queries and results, providing compact empirical evidence that the judge can cite to resolve ambiguity and make more consistent relevance judgments while still relying on semantic reasoning. In a large-scale music search evaluation at Spotify, using relevance estimates derived from historical user interactions across 6,000 recomposed SERPs, the behavior-grounded judge achieves stronger alignment with user preferences, improving Spearman rank correlation by approximately 5% overall and yielding a 91% relative improvement on disagreement cases. On a multilingual human-judged dataset spanning five languages, grounding further increases correlation with human relevance judgments by 15%. Importantly, when evaluated against outcomes from a live A/B test, the grounded judge shows consistently higher alignment with the observed winning model. While absolute alignment remains moderate, these findings demonstrate that lightweight behavioral grounding can improve the reliability and practical usefulness of LLM-based evaluation in real-world search systems.

Related papers

• Towards Realistic Personalization: Evaluating Long-Horizon Preference Following in Personalized User-LLM Interactions [50.70965714314064]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly serving as personal assistants, where users share complex and diverse preferences over extended interactions.<n>This work proposes RealPref, a benchmark for evaluating realistic preference-following in personalized user-LLM interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T15:42:43Z)
• When LLM Judges Inflate Scores: Exploring Overrating in Relevance Assessment [29.603396943658428]
  Large language models (LLMs) can be used as proxies for human judges.<n>We show that models consistently assign inflated relevance scores to passages that do not genuinely satisfy the underlying information need.<n>Experiments show that LLM-based relevance judgments can be highly sensitive to passage length and surface-level lexical cues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T08:37:21Z)
• Topic-Specific Classifiers are Better Relevance Judges than Prompted LLMs [34.14678608130442]
  The unjudged document problem is a key obstacle to the reusability of test collections in information retrieval.<n>We train topic-specific relevance classifiers by finetuning monoT5 with independent LoRA weight adaptation on the judgments of a single assessor.<n>As little as 128 initial human judgments per topic suffice to improve the comparability of models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T09:38:13Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Real-World Summarization: When Evaluation Reaches Its Limits [1.4197924572122094]
  We compare traditional metrics, trainable methods, and LLM-as-a-judge approaches.<n>Our findings reveal that simpler metrics like word overlap surprisingly well with human judgments.<n>Our analysis of real-world business impacts shows incorrect and non-checkable information pose the greatest risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-15T17:23:56Z)
• Expanding Relevance Judgments for Medical Case-based Retrieval Task with Multimodal LLMs [0.032771631221674334]
  We use a Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) to expand relevance judgments, creating a new dataset of automated judgments.<n>Our results demonstrate the potential of MLLMs to scale relevance judgment collection, offering a promising direction for supporting retrieval evaluation in medical and multimodal IR tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T18:29:33Z)
• Quantitative LLM Judges [60.773734899532336]
  We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain.<n>The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score.<n>Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:44:23Z)
• Mind the Gap! Static and Interactive Evaluations of Large Audio Models [55.87220295533817]
  Large Audio Models (LAMs) are designed to power voice-native experiences.<n>This study introduces an interactive approach to evaluate LAMs and collect 7,500 LAM interactions from 484 participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T20:29:02Z)
• JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
  We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z)
• CFaiRLLM: Consumer Fairness Evaluation in Large-Language Model Recommender System [16.84754752395103]
  This work takes a critical stance on previous studies concerning fairness evaluation in Large Language Model (LLM)-based recommender systems.<n>We introduce CFaiRLLM, an enhanced evaluation framework that not only incorporates true preference alignment but also rigorously examines intersectional fairness.<n>To validate the efficacy of CFaiRLLM, we conducted extensive experiments using MovieLens and LastFM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T20:44:59Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.