Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims query auto-completion works better as end-to-end list generation with retrieval grounding and multi-objective preference alignment, and reports a live test cutting typed characters by 5.44% while raising suggestion adoption

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 05:48 UTC pith:7UICZFOD

load-bearing objection Real A/B win behind a circular offline table: the paper's 'gains across all dimensions' are measured with the same verifiers used as DPO rewards, so trust the live experiment and demand the missing stats. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.01023 v4 pith:7UICZFOD submitted 2026-02-01 cs.IR cs.AIcs.LG

Unifying Ranking and Generation in Query Auto-Completion via Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Multi-Objective Alignment

Kai Yuan , Anthony Zheng , Jia Hu , Divyanshu Sheth , Hemanth Velaga , Kylee Kim , Matteo Guarrera , Besim Avci
show 4 more authors
Jianhua Li Xuetao Yin Rajyashree Mukherjee Sean Suchter
This is my paper
classification cs.IR cs.AIcs.LG
keywords query auto-completionretrieval-augmented generationdirect preference optimizationmulti-objective alignmentlist generationgroundednessonline A/B testhybrid serving
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that query auto-completion is better framed as a single generative task—given the prefix and some retrieved context, output the whole suggestion list—than as the classic two-stage retrieve-then-rank pipeline. To make generation safe and useful, it defines six verifiable objectives (relevance, safety, engagement, groundedness against the catalog, groundedness against the retrieved context, and diversity), scores candidate lists with a weighted sum of these verifiers, and aligns a language model with direct preference optimization. It also uses retrieval augmentation, an offline large generator plus an online compact generator, and an iterative teacher-critic-reviser synthetic-data loop to make the approach production-feasible. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper reports that in a live, controlled test on a large search platform the treatment reduced characters typed by 5.44% and increased suggestion adoption by 3.46%, evidence that generative QAC can work at scale without sacrificing latency or safety.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that QAC should be modeled as direct list generation rather than candidate scoring: a single language model, conditioned on a prompt that bundles retrieved candidates plus catalog metadata, produces the complete ordered suggestion list in one pass, and multi-objective DPO over six verifier-defined objectives aligns that generation with user utility. The paper argues this unifies ranking and generation, and reports that in production it improves every offline metric, wins human pairwise preference by +0.40 to +0.69, and in a 10%-traffic A/B test reduces characters typed by 5.44% and increases suggestions taken by 3.46%.

What carries the argument

The central object is the composite reward R(p,S)=I_fmt(S) times the weighted sum of six verifier scores: relevance, engagement, safety, catalog groundedness, context groundedness, and diversity. R(p,S) scores a generated suggestion list S for prefix p and serves both as the DPO training signal (preference pairs with margin) and the offline evaluation metric. Relevance and safety come from fine-tuned or human-labeled models; engagement uses conversion probabilities; catalog groundedness uses the search backend; context groundedness uses an LLM-as-judge; diversity uses adjusted entropy over result pages. A Large Generator precomputes suggestions offline for popular prefixes; a Compact Generat

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on the six automated quality scores being an honest proxy for user satisfaction: the model is trained to maximize those scores and then measured on them, so if the scores drift from real user preference, the offline gains and preference-alignment step could be improving the wrong thing; the live A/B test is the only independent check.

What would settle it

Run the same production A/B test with pre-registered primary metrics and report bootstrapped confidence intervals for the 5.44% keystroke reduction and 3.46% adoption lift; the claim collapses if the intervals include zero or if the effects shrink to nothing once suggestion coverage is controlled for. Additionally, retrain under shuffled verifier weights: if offline scores and human preference do not track the ordering of the weights, the verifier reward, not the model class, is carrying the result.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Generative QAC can serve long-tail prefixes that are absent from query logs, because content retrieval grounds the generation in actual catalog items.
  • Multi-objective DPO can reduce unsafe and ungrounded suggestions without a large coverage penalty: the full model keeps 93.0-93.7% coverage while lowering the catalog ungrounded rate from 3.96% to 0.49% compared with SFT-only.
  • Adding an engagement objective lifts suggestion adoption substantially (offline engagement win rate from -1.32% to +6.58% for the large generator) with negligible relevance loss.
  • A hybrid offline/online serving scheme lets a high-quality large model serve most traffic with sub-millisecond cache lookups, while a compact model covers real-time cache misses.
  • The same recipe transfers to other closed-catalog search domains—e-commerce, media, music—because it assumes only a search backend, a query index, and modest human labels for verifiers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the paper trains and evaluates on the same six verifier scores, so the offline gains could in part reflect the generator learning to satisfy the verifiers rather than serving users; the online A/B metrics are the only fully independent evidence, and the paper reports them only as point estimates with p<0.05, not confidence intervals.
  • Editorial extension: the hybrid serving design—large model for cached head prefixes, compact model for tail prefixes—suggests a general deployment recipe for expensive generative models under latency budgets in any suggestion system.
  • Editorial extension: if the verifier suite is made reusable with published scores and weights, it could serve as a shared reward and evaluation template for other generative retrieval tasks, letting systems be compared on identical safety, groundedness, and diversity axes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper reformulates Query Auto-Completion (QAC) as end-to-end list generation. A prefix is fed into a RAG-style pipeline that retrieves candidates from a query index and a content retriever, augments them with catalog metadata and engagement signals, and prompts a fine-tuned generator to emit a full ordered list of suggestions. Training is multi-stage: synthetic data from an iterative teacher/critic/reviser loop, SFT, a suite of six rule-based/model-based/LLM-as-judge verifiers, and multi-objective DPO using a weighted composite reward. Serving uses a hybrid architecture: a large generator pre-computes suggestions for frequent prefixes, and a compact generator handles long-tail prefixes online. The evaluation compares the full system against an LTR baseline and ablations offline, in a human study, and in a 10% traffic online A/B test. The paper reports offline gains on all six objectives, human preference scores of +0.40 to +0.69, a 5.44% reduction in characters typed, and a 3.46% increase in suggestion adoption.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a meaningful production-oriented contribution: it demonstrates that a generative model can serve QAC under latency constraints using a hybrid cache, and it shows one way to align multiple QAC objectives via verifier-based DPO. The online A/B test is an independent user-level signal and is the strongest evidence in the paper. The human evaluation is also a useful partial check. The proposed verifier suite and the critique-revision synthetic data pipeline are potentially reusable by practitioners. However, the offline evaluation in Table 1 is largely circular: it measures the same verifier scores that were used as the DPO reward, so those columns do not independently validate user utility. The main independent evidence, the online test, is under-reported statistically. The human evaluation also reveals a preference trade-off that undercuts the 'gains across all dimensions' claim. The contribution is therefore promising but the evaluation needs substantial strengthening before the production-validated conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 vs §3.2.3 and §3.2.4] Section 4.1 states: 'We measure performance against the individual verifier objectives (Section 3.2.2).' These are exactly the components R_rel, R_safe, R_eng, R_srg, R_cg, and R_div of the composite reward in Eq. (6), which is also used to construct DPO preference pairs in Section 3.2.4. Table 1 therefore shows that DPO increases the expected composite reward it was trained to maximize; it is not independent evidence that these six scores track user utility. The paper should validate the verifier decomposition (e.g., against held-out human judgments or downstream user behavior) or re-frame Table 1 as a sanity check. The statement in §3.2.3 that the reward weights are 'tuned based on the specific business needs' further raises the risk that the offline metric was adjusted to favor the proposed model; please report how the weights were chosen and whether the Table 1 conclusions are robust
  2. [§7, Table 3] The online A/B test is the only fully independent evidence for the production claim, but it is reported as just two relative percentages with the assertion 'statistically significant (p < 0.05)'. There are no absolute levels (e.g., baseline characters-typed rate and CTR), no confidence intervals, no sample sizes, no experiment duration, no specification of the randomization unit, and no details of the significance test. These omissions prevent the reader from assessing practical significance, variance, or possible novelty effects. Please provide a full A/B reporting package: metric definitions, absolute values, CIs, sample sizes, allocation, duration, and the test used.
  3. [§6.2, Table 2] The pairwise preference result weakens the 'gains across all dimensions' narrative: the Full model receives +0.40, lower than SFT + DPO w/o Eng at +0.69, even though the Full model adds the engagement reward. The text acknowledges a trade-off, but does not explain why the engagement reward degrades holistic preference, nor does it provide any user-level validation that the online keystroke/adoption gains justify this trade-off. This is particularly important because the engagement reward is also one of the verifier components in the offline Table 1. Please discuss the trade-off in depth and, if possible, report preference results stratified by intent or prefix type.
  4. [§3.2.3–3.2.4] The method has several tunable quantities that are not given a sensitivity analysis: the six reward weights w_j, the DPO margin threshold δ, the number of top-k pairs per prefix, and the KL coefficient β. Since these directly control the preference data and the training objective, the claimed robustness of multi-objective DPO is not established. Please add a sensitivity study or state a principled selection criterion; otherwise the method is hard to reproduce or transfer to other QAC settings.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Header/typos] The running header reads 'Unifrying Ranking and Generation' instead of 'Unifying'; fix in the final version.
  2. [§4.2, Table 1] Some cells are missing or shown as '-'; clarify whether these are not applicable or not measured. Also define the notation '-' in the caption. The table formatting makes the LTR Baseline vs. model comparison harder to read.
  3. [§2] The notation Q^k in Eq. (1) is confusing: Q is defined as the space of complete queries, but a suggestion is a list of k queries. State explicitly that Q^k denotes k-tuples of query strings, and clarify the relationship between 'query' and 'suggestion'.
  4. [§3.2.2] The catalog groundedness verifier is described as requiring 'non-empty, reasonable search results', but 'reasonable' is never defined. Provide the operational threshold used in production.
  5. [Appendix A.1] The generator prompt says 'generate up to 10' suggestions, but the problem formulation and evaluation do not specify k. Align the prompt, the formulation, and the evaluation.
  6. [Eq. (3)] The symbols T, n, and c_i are introduced but the normalization of H_adj is not discussed. Verify that H_adj is always in [0,1] as implied by the 'Diversity' metric, and state the range.
  7. [References] Some references are incomplete: e.g., Bodigutla (2021) lacks publication page/venue details, and Patki et al. (2023) gives no DOI or venue beyond 'WWW '23 Companion'. Please complete the entries.
  8. [General] There is no limitations section. Given the circularity concern and the proprietary dataset, a short discussion of external validity would help readers judge generalizability beyond mobile app search.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Offline 'gains across all dimensions' are partly circular: Table 1 metrics are the same verifier scores used as DPO rewards (Eq. 6), so the offline evaluation measures the training objective rather than independent user value.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.3 (Eq. 6), Section 3.2.4, Section 4.1 Metrics, Table 1]
    "These individual scores are combined into a composite reward used for preference optimization... R(p,S)=I_fmt(S)·r_base(p,S) ... For each prefix, we sample several candidate suggestion lists, score each using Equation 6 ... We measure performance against the individual verifier objectives (Section 3.2.2)."

    DPO preference pairs are constructed by scoring candidate lists with the composite reward R(p,S), a weighted sum of the six verifier outputs (relevance, engagement, safety, catalog/context groundedness, diversity). The offline evaluation then reports those same verifier outputs as the metrics in Table 1 (Relevance=R_rel, EngWinRate based on R_eng, UnsafeRate based on R_safe, CatalogUngrdRate based on R_srg, CtxUngrdRate based on R_cg, Diversity=R_div). Thus the 'gains across all dimensions' show only that DPO increases the expected value of the exact reward it was trained to maximize; the evaluation is not an independent test of user utility unless the verifiers are independently validated as faithful utility decompositions. The paper asserts this decomposition but does not validate it, an

full rationale

The central methodological circularity is confined to the offline evaluation. Section 3.2.3 defines R(p,S) as the gated weighted sum of six verifier scores; Section 3.2.4 uses R to build DPO preference pairs; Section 4.1 states explicitly that offline metrics are 'the individual verifier objectives.' Consequently Table 1's claim of gains across relevance, safety, engagement, groundedness, and diversity is a comparison of the model against the same functions used to train it. This is a partial circularity rather than a total one: the DPO objective is a single scalar combination, so gains in individual components are not strictly forced, and the human evaluation (Table 2) and online A/B test (Table 3) are external signals. The online keystroke/adoption results are the strongest independent evidence for the production claim, though the paper reports no confidence intervals or experiment details. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-importation pattern was found: references to prior work by an author (e.g., [32]) are used for baselines/related work, not to justify the core derivation. Overall, the paper's production-validity conclusion rests partly on a circular offline metric, but it also has independently meaningful online validation, so a score of 6 rather than 8-10 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central framework rests on six tuneable reward weights, DPO margin/beta/k hyperparameters, and the assumption that the verifiers capture user utility. No independent physical or formal entity is postulated. The biggest cost is the reward-evaluation loop: the same verifier scores are used both to construct DPO preferences and to report offline improvements, making the offline benchmark self-referential.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward weights w_rel, w_eng, w_safe, w_srg, w_cg, w_div = Not disclosed
    Eq. (6): 'These weights are tuned based on the specific business needs and user experience goals' (Section 3.2.3). Values and tuning procedure are not reported.
  • DPO margin threshold delta = 0.08-0.10
    Section 3.2.4: preference pairs with reward difference below delta are discarded; the range is chosen without reported sensitivity analysis.
  • DPO top-k pairs per prefix = 4
    Section 3.2.4: 'typically k=4'; controls preference dataset size and coverage.
  • DPO KL coefficient beta = Not disclosed
    Appears in Eq. (7); controls closeness to the SFT reference policy, but its value is not reported.
axioms (6)
  • standard math DPO objective (Eq. 7) is a valid alignment method for preference data as defined by Rafailov et al. [23].
    The paper uses the standard DPO loss without formal verification or modification; correctness depends on the cited derivation.
  • domain assumption User utility U can be fully decomposed into relevance, safety, engagement, catalog groundedness, context groundedness, and diversity.
    Section 2 defines U as these six objectives; no completeness or redundancy analysis is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Teacher-LLM + critic + reviser synthetic data are high-quality enough for SFT.
    Section 3.2.1 asserts quality via iterative critique-revision; independent quality measurement is not reported beyond about 10% human labels mixed in.
  • domain assumption Non-empty search result pages from the production backend are a valid catalog-groundedness signal.
    Section 3.2.2 uses the backend as a rule-based verifier; this equates existence of results with groundedness.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-judge context-groundedness verifier with majority voting is reliable.
    Section 3.2.2 trains it on teacher-derived and human-validated examples; no inter-judge agreement or calibration is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Margin-filtered DPO pairs (delta=0.08-0.10, top-k=4) represent meaningful quality differences.
    Section 3.2.4 selects thresholds by hand; no sensitivity analysis is reported.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14618 in / 17029 out tokens · 174535 ms · 2026-08-03T05:48:04.224878+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Query Auto-Completion (QAC) suggests query completions as users type, helping them articulate intent and reach results more efficiently. Existing approaches face fundamental challenges: traditional retrieve-and-rank pipelines have limited long-tail coverage and require extensive feature engineering, while recent generative methods suffer from hallucination and safety risks. We present a unified framework that reformulates QAC as end-to-end list generation through Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and multi-objective Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Our approach combines three key innovations: (1) reformulating QAC as end-to-end list generation with multi-objective optimization; (2) defining and deploying a suite of rule-based, model-based, and LLM-as-judge verifiers for QAC, and using them in a comprehensive methodology that combines RAG, multi-objective DPO, and iterative critique-revision for high-quality synthetic data; (3) a hybrid serving architecture enabling efficient production deployment under strict latency constraints. Evaluation on a large-scale commercial search platform demonstrates substantial improvements: offline metrics show gains across all dimensions, human evaluation yields +0.40 to +0.69 preference scores, and a controlled online experiment achieves 5.44\% reduction in keystrokes and 3.46\% increase in suggestion adoption, validating that unified generation with RAG and multi-objective alignment provides an effective solution for production QAC. This work represents a paradigm shift to end-to-end generation powered by large language models, RAG, and multi-objective alignment, establishing a production-validated framework that can benefit the broader search and recommendation industry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01023 by Anthony Zheng, Besim Avci, Divyanshu Sheth, Hemanth Velaga, Jia Hu, Jianhua Li, Kai Yuan, Kylee Kim, Matteo Guarrera, Rajyashree Mukherjee, Sean Suchter, Xuetao Yin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrative QAC results in a mobile application [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overall RAG-based architecture for generating query auto-complete suggestions. Given a user prefix, the system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training pipeline for the Generator model. (a) Critique-and-revision: a teacher LLM generates initial suggestion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hybrid serving architecture. Frequently requested [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Scaling Search Relevance: Augmenting App Store Ranking with LLM-Generated Judgments

    cs.IR 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Using a fine-tuned 3B LLM to generate millions of textual relevance labels for App Store search improves the ranker's behavioral/textual Pareto frontier and lifts conversion by 0.24%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Towards AI Search Paradigm

    2025. Towards AI Search Paradigm. arXiv:2506.17188 [cs.IR] arXiv preprint

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Jinheon Baek, Nirupama Chandrasekaran, Silviu Cucerzan, Allen Herring, and Sujay Kumar Jauhar. 2024. Knowledge-Augmented Large Language Models for Personalized Contextual Query Suggestion. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024(Singapore, Singapore)(WWW ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3355–3366. doi:10.1145/3589334.3645404

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Ziv Bar-Yossef and Naama Kraus. 2011. Context-sensitive query auto-completion. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW). 107–116

    2011

  4. [4]

    Praveen Kumar Bodigutla. 2021. High Quality Related Search Query Sug- gestions using Deep Reinforcement Learning.CoRRabs/2108.04452 (2021). arXiv:2108.04452 https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    de Rijke

    Fei Cai and M. de Rijke. 2016. A Survey of Query Auto Completion in Information Retrieval.Found. Trends Inf. Retr.10 (2016), 273–363. https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:207178818

    2016

  6. [6]

    Qiannan Cheng, Zhaochun Ren, Yujie Lin, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Xiangyuan Liu, and Maarten de de Rijke. 2021. Long Short-Term Session Search: Joint Personalized Reranking and Next Query Prediction. InProceedings of the Web Conference 2021(Ljubljana, Slovenia)(WWW ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 239–248. doi:10.1145/3442381.3449941

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B

    Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom B. Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017, Long Beach, CA, USA, Isabelle Guyon, Ulrike von Luxburg, Samy Ben...

    2017

  8. [8]

    Dhole, Shivam Bajaj, Ramraj Chandradevan, and Eugene Agichtein

    Kaustubh D. Dhole, Shivam Bajaj, Ramraj Chandradevan, and Eugene Agichtein

  9. [9]

    Kawin Ethayarajh, Winnie Xu, Niklas Muennighoff, Dan Jurafsky, and Douwe Kiela. 2024. KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization.CoRR abs/2402.01306 (2024). arXiv:2402.01306 doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2402.01306

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01306 2024

  10. [10]

    Nicolas Fiorini and Zhiyong Lu. 2018. Personalized neural language models for real-world query auto completion. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 3 (Industry Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans - Louisiana, 208...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/n18-3026 2018

  11. [11]

    Simon Gog, Giulio Ermanno Pibiri, and Rossano Venturini. 2020. Efficient and Effective Query Auto-Completion. InProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Virtual Event, China)(SIGIR ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2271–2280. doi:10.1145/3397271.3401432

    arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Mohammad Al Hasan, Nish Parikh, Gyanit Singh, and Neel Sundaresan. 2011. Query suggestion for E-commerce sites. InProceedings of the Fourth ACM In- ternational Conference on Web Search and Data Mining(Hong Kong, China) (WSDM ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 765–774. doi:10.1145/1935826.1935927

    arXiv 2011

  13. [13]

    Aaron Jaech and Mari Ostendorf. 2018. Personalized Language Model for Query Auto-Completion. InProceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia, 700–705. doi:10.18653/v1/P18-2111

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/p18-2111 2018

  14. [14]

    Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.20, 4 (Oct. 2002), 422–446. doi:10.1145/ 582415.582418

    arXiv 2002

  15. [15]

    Jyun-Yu Jiang and Wei Wang. 2018. RIN: Reformulation Inference Network for Context-Aware Query Suggestion. InProceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management(Torino, Italy)(CIKM ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 197–206. doi:10. 1145/3269206.3271808

    arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Shubhra Kanti Karmaker Santu, Parikshit Sondhi, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2017. On Application of Learning to Rank for E-Commerce Search. InProceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Infor- mation Retrieval(Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan)(SIGIR ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 475–484. doi:10....

    arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(Van...

    2020

  18. [18]

    Zhipeng Li, Shuang Zheng, Jiaping Xiao, Xianneng Li, and Lei Wang. 2025. UCTG: A Unified Controllable Text Generation Framework for Query Auto-Completion.. InCOLING (Industry). Association for Computational Linguistics, 679–688

    2025

  19. [19]

    Agnès Mustar, Sylvain Lamprier, and Benjamin Piwowarski. 2020. Using BERT and BART for Query Suggestion. InProceedings of the First Joint Conference of the Information Retrieval Communities in Europe (CIRCLE 2020), Samatan, Gers, France, July 6-9, 2020 (CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 2621), Iván Cantador, Max Chevalier, Massimo Melucci, and Josiane Mothe...

    2020

  20. [20]

    Agnès Mustar, Sylvain Lamprier, and Benjamin Piwowarski. 2021. On the Study of Transformers for Query Suggestion.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.40, 1, Article 18 (Oct. 2021), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3470562

    work page doi:10.1145/3470562 2021

  21. [21]

    Dae Hoon Park and Rikio Chiba. 2017. A Neural Language Model for Query Auto-Completion. InProceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan) (SIGIR ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1189–1192. doi:10.1145/3077136.3080758

    arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Rohit Patki, Sravan Bodapati, and Christopher Potts. 2023. Multi-objective neural retrieval for query autocomplete. InWWW ’23 Companion. https://www.amazon. science/publications/multi-objective-neural-retrieval-for-query-autocomplete

    2023

  23. [23]

    Manning, Ste- fano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning, Ste- fano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model. InAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, Dece...

    2023

  24. [24]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov

  25. [25]

    Sonali Singh, Sachin Farfade, and Prakash Mandayam Comar. 2024. DiAL : Diversity Aware Listwise Ranking for Query Auto-Complete.. InEMNLP (Industry Track). Association for Computational Linguistics, 1152–1162

    2024

  26. [26]

    Alessandro Sordoni, Yoshua Bengio, Hossein Vahabi, Christina Lioma, Jakob Grue Simonsen, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2015. A Hierarchical Recurrent Encoder- Decoder for Generative Context-Aware Query Suggestion. InProceedings of the Preprint, 2026, Yuan, Zheng, Hu, et al. 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Melbourne, Austr...

    arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F

    Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F. Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize from human feedback.CoRRabs/2009.01325 (2020). arXiv:2009.01325 https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01325

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Andy Sun, Tianqi Zheng, Aakash Kolekar, Rohit Patki, Hossein Khazaei, Xuan Guo, George Cai, David Liu, Ruirui Li, Yupin Huang, Dante Everaert, Hanqing Lu, Garima Patel, and Monica Cheng. 2024. A product-aware query auto-completion framework for e-commerce search via retrieval-augmented generation method. In Proceedings of the Workshop Information Retrieva...

    2024

  29. [29]

    Prateek Verma, Shan Zhong, Xiaoyu Liu, and Adithya Rajan. 2023. Seasonality Based Reranking of E-commerce Autocomplete Using Natural Language Queries. arXiv:2308.02055 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.02055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Sida Wang, Weiwei Guo, Huiji Gao, and Bo Long. 2020. Efficient Neural Query Auto Completion. InProceedings of the 29th ACM International Confer- ence on Information & Knowledge Management(Virtual Event, Ireland)(CIKM ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2797–2804. doi:10.1145/3340531.3412701

    arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Zhibo Wang, Xiaoze Jiang, Zhiheng Qin, Enyun Yu, and Han Li. 2025. Personal- ized Query Auto-Completion for Long and Short-Term Interests with Adaptive Detoxification Generation.KDD(2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Kai Yuan and Da Kuang. 2021. Deep Pairwise Learning To Rank For Search Autocomplete.CoRRabs/2108.04976 (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.04976

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Gunter, and Jiawei Han

    Aston Zhang, Amit Goyal, Weize Kong, Hongbo Deng, Anlei Dong, Yi Chang, Carl A. Gunter, and Jiawei Han. 2015. adaQAC: Adaptive Query Auto-Completion via Implicit Negative Feedback. InProceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Santiago, Chile) (SIGIR ’15). Association for Computing Machin...

    arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B

    Daniel M. Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B. Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul F. Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. 2019. Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences.CoRRabs/1909.08593 (2019). arXiv:1909.08593 http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.08593 A Prompt Templates for Critique–Revision and Generation This appendix presents simplified vers...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [37]

    User Prefix: {prefix}

  36. [38]

    Query Candidates ({query_candidate_count}): - Historical queries issued after this prefix, with frequency, conversion rate, click-through rate, and example search results

  37. [39]

    [GUIDELINES] - Ground every suggestion ONLY in the provided query candidates and app metadata

    Apps Metadata ({relevant_app_count}): - Titles, categories, and short descriptions for apps that appear in the results. [GUIDELINES] - Ground every suggestion ONLY in the provided query candidates and app metadata. - Suggestions must complete or closely match the user prefix and reflect plausible intents. - Avoid unsafe, harmful, or policy-violating queri...

  38. [40]

    Prompt: - Full generation prompt, including user prefix, query candidates, retrieved apps, and instructions

  39. [41]

    Response: - JSON-formatted suggestion list and any associated metadata (e.g ., origins). [EVALUATION DIMENSIONS] For each suggested query, comment on: - Relevance: is it relevant to the prefix and supported by engagement signals? - Prefix matching: does it complete or closely match the prefix? - Fluency and sense: is it grammatical and plausible as a huma...

    2026

  40. [42]

    Prompt: - Original generation prompt

  41. [43]

    Initial Response: - Initial suggestion list and any metadata

  42. [44]

    [REVISION GUIDELINES] - Respect all constraints from the original generation prompt ( safety, groundedness, output format, diversity)

    Assessment: - Critic's per-suggestion analysis and overall revision recommendations. [REVISION GUIDELINES] - Respect all constraints from the original generation prompt ( safety, groundedness, output format, diversity). - Follow the Critic's feedback to fix unsafe or ungrounded queries, poor prefix matching, and near-duplicates. - Preserve suggestions the...

  43. [45]

    Briefly describe the main changes (e.g., which suggestions were replaced or re-ordered and why)

  44. [46]

    </answer>

    Then output the final suggestion list in the same format as the Generator: <answer> query1 query2 ... </answer>

  45. [2017]

    arXiv:1707.06347 http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

    Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms.CoRRabs/1707.06347 (2017). arXiv:1707.06347 http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [2024]

    InNAACL (Demonstrations)

    QueryExplorer: An Interactive Query Generation Assistant for Search and Exploration.. InNAACL (Demonstrations). Association for Computational Linguistics, 107–115