pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16479 · v1 · pith:GRAVZULOnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 💻 cs.IR · cs.AI

Policy-Grounded Dynamic Facet Suggestions for Job Search

Dan Xu , Baofen Zheng , Qianqi Shen , Jianqiang Shen , Wenqiong Liu , Chunnan Yao , Ping Liu , Rajat Arora
show 6 more authors
Kevin Kao Hsiang Lin Wanjun Jiang Yusuke Takebuchi Jingwei Wu Wenjing Zhang
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 21:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR cs.AI
keywords dynamic facet suggestionjob searchquery refinementintent disambiguationpersonalized searchretrieval augmented rankingsmall language modelsreal-time serving
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dynamic facet suggestion refines short job queries by surfacing personalized semantic attributes from user and query context.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Over 80 percent of job queries have three or fewer keywords, making intent hard to infer. The paper introduces dynamic facet suggestion as an interactive tool that suggests personalized semantic attributes conditioned on the joint user-query context. It relies on a policy-grounded framework with offline taxonomy curation, embedding retrieval of candidates, and scoring by a distilled small language model. The approach is engineered for real-time use through single-token scoring, batching, and prefix caching. Offline tests indicate high precision while online experiments demonstrate gains in engagement and overall job search effectiveness.

Core claim

We present dynamic facet suggestion (DFS), an interactive query refinement mechanism that facilitates intent disambiguation by surfacing personalized semantic attributes conditioned on the joint user-query context in real time, implemented through a policy-grounded retrieval-augmented ranking framework.

What carries the argument

The policy-grounded retrieval-augmented ranking framework that combines offline taxonomy curation, embedding-based retrieval, and distilled small language model scoring for real-time facet suggestions.

If this is right

  • Offline evaluation shows high precision for the generated facet suggestions.
  • Online A/B tests indicate significant improvements in suggestion engagement.
  • Job search outcomes improve for users interacting with the dynamic suggestions.
  • Real-time serving is achieved via pointwise single-token scoring with batching and prefix caching.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method may generalize to other search applications involving short or ambiguous queries.
  • Further personalization could be achieved by incorporating additional user signals over time.
  • Reducing reliance on manual query reformulation could streamline the overall search process.
  • Similar architectures might benefit from advances in larger language models for scoring.

Load-bearing premise

The combination of curated taxonomy, embeddings, and distilled model scoring will reliably yield facets that users find helpful and that lead to better search results in production.

What would settle it

If an A/B test deployment shows no measurable lift in user engagement with suggestions or in downstream job application rates, the central claim would be undermined.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16479 by Baofen Zheng, Chunnan Yao, Dan Xu, Hsiang Lin, Jianqiang Shen, Jingwei Wu, Kevin Kao, Ping Liu, Qianqi Shen, Rajat Arora, Wanjun Jiang, Wenjing Zhang, Wenqiong Liu, Yusuke Takebuchi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of dynamic facet suggestion in AI-powered job search for the query [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: End-to-end dynamic facet suggestion workflow, including the offline LLM-powered taxonomy curation pipeline and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Job seekers often initiate search with short, underspecified queries. At LinkedIn, over 80% of job-related queries contain three or fewer keywords, making accurate user intent inference and relevant job retrieval particularly challenging. We present dynamic facet suggestion (DFS), an interactive query refinement mechanism that facilitates intent disambiguation by surfacing personalized semantic attributes conditioned on the joint user-query context in real time. We propose a policy-grounded, retrieval-augmented ranking framework for facet suggestion, comprising offline taxonomy curation, embedding-based retrieval of top-K candidates, and distilled small language model (SLM) based candidate scoring. The system is optimized for real-time serving via pointwise single-token scoring with batching and prefix caching. Offline evaluation demonstrates high precision for generated suggestions, and online A/B tests show significant improvements in suggestion engagement and job search outcomes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents Dynamic Facet Suggestion (DFS), an interactive real-time query refinement system for job search that surfaces personalized semantic attributes conditioned on joint user-query context. It describes a policy-grounded retrieval-augmented ranking pipeline consisting of offline taxonomy curation, embedding-based top-K candidate retrieval, and distilled SLM candidate scoring, with optimizations including pointwise single-token scoring, batching, and prefix caching for low-latency serving. Offline evaluation is reported to achieve high precision, while online A/B tests indicate significant gains in suggestion engagement and downstream job search outcomes.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold under scrutiny, the work addresses a high-impact practical problem in information retrieval where over 80% of job queries are short and underspecified. The emphasis on real-time serving constraints and the combination of curated taxonomy with distilled models offers transferable engineering insights for production facet suggestion systems. The policy-grounded framing and explicit focus on personalization via joint context represent a coherent applied contribution in the cs.IR domain.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and Evaluation sections: The claims of 'high precision for generated suggestions' and 'significant improvements in suggestion engagement and job search outcomes' are presented without any numerical results, baseline comparisons, statistical significance tests, or error analysis. This directly undermines verification of the central claim that the joint user-query conditioning produces useful personalized facets, as the magnitude and reliability of gains cannot be assessed from the given information.
  2. Online A/B Tests description: No details are provided on test design (e.g., control condition, traffic split, duration, or exact metrics such as engagement rate lift or application completion rate). Without these, it is impossible to determine whether observed improvements are attributable to the DFS mechanism rather than confounding factors in the production environment.
minor comments (2)
  1. The distinction between 'policy-grounded' ranking and standard retrieval-augmented generation should be made explicit in the introduction or related work to avoid ambiguity for readers unfamiliar with the specific policy formulation.
  2. Figure or table captions for any offline precision results should include the exact evaluation metric (e.g., precision@5) and the candidate pool size to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript describing the Dynamic Facet Suggestion system. The comments highlight important areas for improving the presentation of quantitative evidence and experimental details, which we will address through revisions to enhance verifiability while preserving the core contributions on policy-grounded retrieval-augmented ranking for real-time personalized facets.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and Evaluation sections: The claims of 'high precision for generated suggestions' and 'significant improvements in suggestion engagement and job search outcomes' are presented without any numerical results, baseline comparisons, statistical significance tests, or error analysis. This directly undermines verification of the central claim that the joint user-query conditioning produces useful personalized facets, as the magnitude and reliability of gains cannot be assessed from the given information.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current version summarizes offline and online results at a high level without embedding specific numerical values, baseline comparisons, or statistical details in the abstract and evaluation sections. This omission was intended to keep the initial submission concise but does limit assessment of effect sizes. In the revised manuscript, we will incorporate concrete offline precision metrics (e.g., precision@K for top-K candidates), explicit baseline comparisons (such as non-contextual or query-only retrieval), statistical significance tests, and a concise error analysis focused on cases where joint user-query conditioning improves or fails to improve facet relevance. These additions will directly support the claim regarding the value of joint conditioning. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Online A/B Tests description: No details are provided on test design (e.g., control condition, traffic split, duration, or exact metrics such as engagement rate lift or application completion rate). Without these, it is impossible to determine whether observed improvements are attributable to the DFS mechanism rather than confounding factors in the production environment.

    Authors: We agree that the online evaluation section lacks sufficient methodological detail to isolate the contribution of the DFS pipeline. In the revision, we will expand this section to specify the control condition (standard non-dynamic facet suggestions), traffic split ratio, test duration, exact primary and secondary metrics (including engagement rate and downstream application completion rate), observed percentage lifts with confidence intervals or p-values, and a brief discussion of potential production confounders along with controls applied. This will strengthen attribution to the policy-grounded, retrieval-augmented scoring approach. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in system description or evaluations

full rationale

The paper presents a retrieval-augmented pipeline for dynamic facet suggestion consisting of offline taxonomy curation, embedding retrieval, and distilled SLM scoring, followed by separate offline precision metrics and online A/B tests. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains are described that reduce any reported outcome to an input by construction. The derivation chain relies on standard engineering components and external empirical validation rather than self-referential definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework is described at the level of components (taxonomy, embeddings, SLM) without detailing any fitted constants or unstated assumptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5713 in / 1095 out tokens · 48617 ms · 2026-05-19T21:32:50.967429+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Kato, and Masafumi Oyamada

    Kenya Abe, Kunihiro Takeoka, Makoto P. Kato, and Masafumi Oyamada. 2025. LLM-based Query Expansion Fails for Unfamiliar and Ambiguous Queries. In Proceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 3035–3039

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. 2023. Qwen technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609(2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Yuntao Bai et al. 2022. Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073(2022). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2212.08073

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.08073 2022

  4. [4]

    Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach. InProceedings of the 24th ICML. 129–136

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Yuanning Feng, Sinan Wang, Zhengxiang Cheng, Yao Wan, and Dongping Chen

    work page

  6. [6]

    Are We on the Right Way to Assessing LLM-as-a-Judge?arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16041(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Marti A. Hearst. 2006. Design Recommendations for Faceted Search Interfaces. InSIGIR Workshop on Faceted Search

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531(2015)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yusuke Fujii, Alex Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Tengyu Ma, Ali Farhadi, Tom Miller, et al. 2023. Dis- tilling Step-by-Step: Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (ACL)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Jui-Ting Huang, Ashish Sharma, Shuying Sun, Li Xia, David Zhang, Philip Pronin, Janani Padmanabhan, Giuseppe Ottaviano, and Linjun Yang. 2020. Embedding- based retrieval in facebook search. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2553–2561

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Ayyoob Imani, Amir Vakili, Ali Montazer, and Azadeh Shakery. 2019. Deep Neural Networks for Query Expansion Using Word Embeddings. InAdvances in Information Retrieval: 41st European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2019, Cologne, Germany, April 14–18, 2019. 203–210

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Rolf Jagerman, Honglei Zhuang, Zhen Qin, Xuanhui Wang, and Michael Bender- sky. 2023. Query expansion by prompting large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03653(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Yuchin Juan, Jianqiang Shen, Shaobo Zhang, Qianqi Shen, Caleb Johnson, Luke Simon, Liangjie Hong, and Wenjing Zhang. 2025. Scaling Retrieval for Web- Scale Recommenders: Lessons from Inverted Indexes to Embedding Search. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 1066–1069

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Benjamin Le, and Ganesh Venkataraman. 2017. Person- alized job recommendation system at linkedin: Practical challenges and lessons learned. InProceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems. 346–347

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Sheng Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. vLLM: Easy, Fast, and Cheap LLM Serving with PagedAttention.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06180(2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Bruce Croft

    Victor Lavrenko and W. Bruce Croft. 2001. Relevance-Based Language Models. InProceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 120–127

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    Yibin Lei, Yu Cao, Tianyi Zhou, Tao Shen, and Andrew Yates. 2024. Corpus- Steered Query Expansion with Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18031(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    uttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K"uttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt"aschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Dawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang, Alimohammad Beigi, Chengshuai Zhao, Zhen Tan, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Yuxuan Jiang, Canyu Chen, Tianhao Wu, et al

    work page

  20. [20]

    InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    From generation to judgment: Opportunities and challenges of llm-as- a-judge. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2757–2791

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Zehan Li, Xin Zhang, Yanzhao Zhang, Dingkun Long, Pengjun Xie, and Meishan Zhang. 2023. Towards General Text Embeddings with Multi-stage Contrastive Learning.arXivabs/2308.03281 (2023). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.03281

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.03281 2023

  22. [22]

    Ping Liu, Jianqiang Shen, Qianqi Shen, Chunnan Yao, Kevin Kao, Dan Xu, Rajat Arora, Baofen Zheng, Caleb Johnson, Liangjie Hong, Jingwei Wu, and Wenjing Zhang. 2025. Powering Job Search at Scale: LLM-Enhanced Query Understanding in Job Matching Systems. InProceedings of the 34th CIKM. 4971–4975

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Iain Mackie, Shubham Chatterjee, and Jeffrey Dalton. 2023. Generative relevance feedback with large language models. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2026—-2031

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748(2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Yonggang Qiu and Hans-Peter Frei. 1993. Concept based query expansion. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 160–169

    work page 1993

  26. [26]

    J. J. Rocchio. 1971. Relevance Feedback in Information Retrieval. InThe SMART Retrieval System: Experiments in Automatic Document Processing, Gerard Salton (Ed.). Prentice-Hall, 313–323

    work page 1971

  27. [27]

    Dwaipayan Roy, Debjyoti Paul, Mandar Mitra, and Utpal Garain. 2016. Using Word Embeddings for Automatic Query Expansion. InNeu-IR’16 SIGIR Workshop on Neural Information Retrieval, July 21, 2016, Pisa, Italy

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Jianqiang Shen, Yuchin Juan, Ping Liu, Wen Pu, Shaobo Zhang, Qianqi Shen, Liangjie Hong, and Wenjing Zhang. 2024. Learning Links for Adaptable and Explainable Retrieval. InProceedings of the 33rd CIKM. 4046–4050

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Guijin Son, Hyunwoo Ko, Hoyoung Lee, Yewon Kim, and Seunghyeok Hong

    work page

  30. [30]

    Llm-as-a-judge & reward model: What they can and cannot do.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11239(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    2009.Faceted Search

    Daniel Tunkelang. 2009.Faceted Search. Morgan & Claypool Publishers

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Ellen M Voorhees. 1994. Query expansion using lexical-semantic relations. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 61–69

    work page 1994

  33. [33]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, and Furu Wei. 2023. Query2doc: Query expansion with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07678(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems35 (2022), 24824–24837

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. 2025. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Ka-Ping Yee, Kirsten Swearingen, Kevin Li, and Marti A. Hearst. 2003. Faceted Metadata for Image Search and Browsing. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 401–408

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    Oliver Young, Yixing Fan, Ruqing Zhang, Jiafeng Guo, Maarten de Rijke, and Xueqi Cheng. 2024. GaQR: An Efficient Generation-augmented Question Rewriter. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 4228–4232

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Zhi Zheng, Kai Hui, Ben He, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, and Andrew Yates. 2020. BERT- QE: Contextualized Query Expansion for Document Re-ranking. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020. 4718–4728

    work page 2020