When Search Engine Services meet Large Language Models: Visions and Challenges

The performance of search engine services heavily relies on the gathering and examination of expansive online content. For this process, the use of efficient web crawlers is paramount. They systematically browse the World Wide Web to gather a wide variety of web resources including web pages, images, videos, and other multimedia content, which are crucial for maintaining the search engine’s ability to provide comprehensive responses to user queries [53].

The data collection process is complemented by term extraction module – extracting key terms and phrases from the content. Term extraction leverages advanced text analysis and NLP techniques that identify and categorize important information, thereby refining the search engine’s match between user queries and relevant documents. The optimization of this process is further enhanced by utilizing metadata like titles, descriptions, and tags, along with implementing sophisticated algorithms for entity recognition, semantic and sentiment analysis [108, 53].

Document storage and indexing form the backbone of a search engine’s ability to quickly and accurately match and deliver search results. A critical part of this indexing process is the creation of an inverted index, a fundamental data structure that associates terms with the documents they are found in. This significantly reduces search time by narrowing down the search to documents containing the queried keywords [97].

Additionally, term weighting strategies such as TF-IDF are implemented to rank terms within documents based on their frequency and relevance, improving the accuracy and relevance of search results by prioritizing highly informative terms [102]. These techniques ensure a precise match between user queries and indexed materials, significantly enhancing the search experience.

Efficient document retrieval and ranking are important for delivering relevant and valuable search engine results. The primary stages in this process include:

• •

  Query Processing: The first step involves analyzing and potentially reformulating the user’s query using advanced NLP techniques. This phase is crucial for understanding search intent and improving document retrieval effectiveness [114].

• •

  Relevance Scoring: Each document is assessed and given a relevance score, based on criteria like query term frequency, document structure, and semantic content. This step quantifies the document’s relevance to the query [144].

• •

  Document Ranking: Utilizing relevance scores and other factors (e.g., user metrics, site authority), algorithms like PageRank and machine learning models determine the document order, prioritizing the most pertinent results [76, 117].

• •

  Search Results Personalization: Personalization of results based on users’ profile, search history, locations, and devices aims to enhance user satisfaction by tailoring outcomes adaptively [110].

• •

  Continuous Optimization: The process is dynamically refined through A/B testing, user feedback, and technological progress to align with user preferences and content changes [88].

The ranking algorithms, particularly those based on Learning-to-Rank (LTR) models, are fundamental for search engines to sequence results with precision. LTR models, informed by user interactions and feedback, employ different approaches to ranking:

• •

  Pointwise approaches: View ranking as a regression or classification to predict individual document scores.

• •

  Pairwise approaches: Focus on the relative ranking between document pairs [12].

• •

  Listwise approaches: Aim to optimize the entire result list’s order [134].

Listwise methods are notably effective in achieving user satisfaction [46].

The development of LTR models is influenced by the availability of human-annotated data, leading to various methodologies:

• •

  Active LTR prioritizes annotating query-document pairs with uncertain predictions for efficient model training with fewer examples [123].

• •

  Semi-Supervised LTR combines limited labeled data with larger unlabeled datasets to enhance model training, employing strategies like self-training for effective use of annotations [68, 67].

• •

  Pretrain-Finetuned LTR involves pre-training on vast datasets followed by fine-tuning with annotated query-document pairs. This approach significantly improves ranking accuracy and data usage efficiency [61, 66].

Selecting among these methods is dictated by the specific LTR challenges and objectives within search engines [130].

We outline a technical framework for assessing search engine performance, incorporating critical methodologies and metrics for comprehensive experimentation and analysis.

A/B testing, which is crucial for ongoing enhancement in search engine performance, involves comparing two variations of a search engine to determine the one that performs better [101]. The A/B testing protocol involves:

• •

  Establishing Objectives: Defining measurable goals, such as boosting click-through rates or search result relevance [82].

• •

  Creating Variants: Developing a control version (A) versus an experimental version (B), with the latter introducing a new ranking model or feature [52].

• •

  Segmenting Users: Randomly allocating users to either variant to ensure statistical comparability and isolate the effects of changes [82].

• •

  Test Implementation: Running the test until reaching statistical significance, while collecting performance data for both variants [14].

Evaluating search engine performance necessitates metrics that accurately reflect user satisfaction with search results. Essential KPIs include:

• •

  Precision at Top-k Results (P@k) and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) for ranking accuracy of the search outcomes [111, 126].

• •

  Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) for the speed of relevant content retrieval [17].

• •

  Click-through Rate (CTR) and User Satisfaction for gauging engagement and satisfaction [21].

• •

  Conversion Metrics for assessing the economic impact of changes on commercial search engines [33].

Through A/B testing and rigorous evaluation with these KPIs, search engine developers can make informed decisions to enhance user experience, relevance, and achieve business objectives, ensuring ongoing improvement and optimization of search technology.

Introduced by “Attention is All You Need” [118], transformers revolutionized NLP by utilizing self-attention mechanisms over recurrent layers. This innovation allows simultaneous word processing in sentences, enhancing efficiency and linguistic comprehension. We, here, compare encoder-only, decoder-only, and encoder-decoder models of transformers, exemplified by BERT, GPT, and BART, respectively [32, 71].

• •

  Encoder-Only Models: BERT exemplifies this category with its bidirectional training enhancing context understanding. Its encoder transforms input sequences into contextualized representations, aiding in various NLP tasks [49].

• •

  Decoder-Only Models: GPT and related models emphasize text generation through stacked decoder layers. They predict subsequent words based on previous ones, enabling coherent text generation [1].

• •

  Encoder-Decoder Models: BART combines both approaches for robust language understanding and generation. This architecture supports a wide range of tasks including summarization and translation [59].

Each model type, from encoder-only to encoder-decoder, offers unique capabilities for specific NLP applications. The evolution from basic transformer models to specialized ones like BERT, GPT, and BART highlights rapid advancements in NLP technology [32, 71].

Pre-training models undergo essential tasks to understand and generate natural language effectively. A condensed overview of these tasks is as follows:

• •

  Masked Language Modeling (MLM): This method conceals specific words in a text, provoking the model to predict the omitted words based on the context. This process is critical for comprehending the bidirectional context [49].

• •

  Next Token Prediction: It involves predicting subsequent words in a sequence, teaching the model the likelihood of word sequences. This is essential for models aimed at text generation like GPT [6, 78].

• •

  Next Sentence Prediction (NSP): With this task, models are trained to assess whether a sentence logically follows another, enhancing sentence-level comprehension for tasks like text classification [113].

• •

  Permutation Language Modeling (PLM): This task is unique to models like XLNet where word order is scrambled for the model to predict the original arrangement, aiding in non-linear understanding of contexts [140].

• •

  Sentence Order Prediction (SOP): An advancement of NSP, where models reorder shuffled sentences in a text, improving their grasp on narrative flow and long-range dependencies [54].

• •

  Contrastive Learning: This task focuses on differentiating between correct and corrupted input versions, refining the models’ semantic comprehension [18].

These tasks collectively prepare Large Language Models (LLMs) for a wide array of NLP applications by fostering a robust linguistic foundation.

Following the broad-based learning in the pre-training stage, LLMs undergo Supervised Fine-tuning (SFT) to enhance their capabilities for particular applications. Later, model alignments, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), would be carried out to adjust the model’s outputs to closely match human expectations and norms, thereby improving the model’s efficacy, accuracy, and even ethical considerations in its applications [5].

SFT is a powerful technique for optimizing LLMs to perform specific tasks with enhanced accuracy and performance. This process involves leveraging the pre-existing knowledge of the LLM, gained through pre-training on extensive datasets, and adapting it to excel in targeted applications.

• •

  Data Preparation: The process begins by selecting task-specific, labeled datasets that align with the intended application of the LLM. This data could range from specialized corpora in sectors like healthcare or finance to structured question-answer pairs for tasks such as question-answering (QA) [113].

• •

  Training Procedure: SFT capitalizes token sequence prediction tasks (e.g., question-answering), enhancing the model’s adaptability and accuracy without sacrificing generalizability [113].

RLHF involves several steps designed to align the model’s outputs with qualitative judgments or desired behaviors as determined by human feedback [5, 96]. Key components include:

1. 1.

   Reward Modeling: Training a model to predict preferred outcomes by evaluating model outputs against human judgments, aligning predictions with human values [93].

2. 2.

   Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO): Employing PPO to update decision-making policies towards maximum reward outcomes, ensuring effective learning from complex feedback [133].

3. 3.

   Fine-tuning with Human Feedback: Continual fine-tuning using human feedback on new samples to refine both the LLM and the reward model, enhancing model alignment with human expectations [5].

By integrating model SFT and alignments, LLMs achieve superior performance, ethical soundness, and practical value in applications [20, 13].

In the era of foundation models, LLMs have emerged as versatile tools with impactful applications across different domains. Harnessing the power of LLMs, notable advancements have been witnessed in the domains of Prompts, Reasoners, and Agents. Let’s delve into each of these perspectives to explore the diverse applications of LLMs.

• •

  Prompts: Prompting techniques are essential for effectively utilizing LLMs, enabling them to comprehend and react to user needs. Prompt engineering allows for the customization of LLM output through advanced techniques such as few-shot and zero-shot (in-context) learning, thus improving task adaptability [136, 27]. Additionally, prompts open up possibilities for innovative and dynamic interactions with LLMs, enhancing user engagement [22, 89].

• •

  Reasoners: LLMs, powered by reasoning techniques like chain-of-thought (CoT) and tree-of-thought (ToT), excel in complex problem-solving by mimicking human reasoning processes [129, 141]. These methods enable LLMs to extend their knowledge base, stay current with information, and address bias and fairness in their responses [73, 16, 83].

• •

  Agents: Acting as autonomous agents, LLMs autonomously perform tasks, interact with external tools, and learn to improve their performance over time with minimal human intervention [2, 69]. These agents are notable for their memory and planning abilities, collaboration potential, and the capacity for customization, making them versatile across various applications [69, 120, 42, 139, 137, 106].

In essence, the applications of LLMs through prompts, reasoning frameworks, and autonomous agents showcases their broad capabilities and potential for innovation across different domains. Continual advancements in this sphere promise to further enhance LLM utility and versatility.

At the core of LLM pre-training is the need for extensive and varied datasets. The functionality of search engines in scouring the internet enables the collection of a vast array of data from multiple sources, encapsulating a diverse range of languages, formats – including HTML pages, PDFs, and text files – and topics from scientific research papers to literary works and current news articles [47, 53].

The wide spectrum of content, collected and aggregated by search engines, serves as an ideal corpus for LLM pre-training. It allows the resulting language models to develop a comprehensive understanding of language patterns, semantics, and syntax. Such comprehensive corpora is instrumental in spanning the vast landscape of human language and applications, thereby ensuring the model’s broad applicability across different areas. This strategic compilation not only fosters a deeper comprehension of language intricacies but also solidifies the foundation for creating models that can adeptly navigate the complexities and subtleties of human expression found across the wide-ranging contents at web-scale [98].

During the pre-training phase of Language Learning Models (LLMs), the act of categorizing the corpus according to various domains and conducting an evaluation of text quality serves a pivotal role in guaranteeing a balanced data distribution. This practice is integral to the development of a comprehensive and impartial model. This methodology involves a rigorous selection of the dataset encompassing a myriad of domains such as news, research reports, literature, and colloquial internet language, all while emphasizing the diversity, reliability, and authority of contents through specific quality indicators [57].

In this way, LLMs not only benefit from a diversified learning experience, minimizing the risk of domain biases and the over-representation of certain linguistic styles, but also are able to understand and generate language with a remarkable balance and broad applicability [81]. This method does not merely serve as a strategic preference but emerges as an essential strategy in the development of comprehensive, equitable LLMs capable of navigating through the extensive yet unique landscape of human communication [9].

Search engines operate as dynamic repositories of information, continuously updated by web crawlers that traverse the internet to index new and revised content. This ever-evolving corpus of information serves as a vital resource for the continuous improvement of LLMs, particularly in keeping these models relevant, accurate, and reflective of current language usage and trends [58].

Take a LLM-backed chatbot as an example. As global events unfold or new discoveries are made, the chatbot must understand and provide information on these topical events. By regularly updating the LLM with content indexed by search engines—such as news articles and reports on these recent events–the model remains competent in delivering timely and relevant responses to user inquiries [119].

One of the primary enhancements search engines offer to LLM fine-tuning involves teaching the model to recognize and interpret users’ intentions. The capability of instruction-following could be achieved through the mechanism of query rewriting, where search algorithms adjust or reformulate user queries to better capture the user’s intent [116].

By analyzing patterns in query rewriting, LLMs can learn to infer the underlying intentions behind users’ queries, enabling them to respond more accurately and helpfully. This technique not only improves the model’s comprehension of user requests but also its ability to engage in more intuitive and efficient dialogue [96].

The fine-tuning process also capitalizes on structuring datasets that simulate the question-answering dynamic, utilizing actual search queries as the basis for generating questions and selecting top-relevant content or user-most-clicked items as the corresponding answers. By doing so, the model is trained on real-world examples of how users phrase queries and what information they find most useful, based on search engine results and click-through data. This approach provides the LLM with a rich dataset reflective of genuine user interactions, enabling the model to better understand and structure its responses in a manner that aligns with user expectations and the typical flow of information retrieval [100, 51]. Fig. 5 illustrates an example of leveraging search queries and top search results, collected from a search engine, to synthesize question-answer (QA) pairs for SFT. Classic NLP techniques or prompt-based tuning with LLMs could be used to organize search results into an answer to the question in the query.

Finally, the utilization of domain-specific queries and content curated by search engines serves as a cornerstone for fine-tuning LLMs with specialized knowledge. This involves leveraging search engine capabilities to gather and categorize information specific to distinct fields or industries, such as medicine, law, or technology [99].

By fine-tuning the model on datasets comprised of domain-relevant queries and authoritative content, the LLM acquires an in-depth understanding of sector-specific terminologies, concepts, and commonly sought information. This process not only enhances the LLM’s expertise in various domains but also its ability to deliver precise, expert-level answers to queries within those specific areas [44, 31].

The LTR system, an integral component of search engines, is engineered to organize and display search results according to their semantic significance in relation to the user’s search query [76, 130]. This functionality can be particularly beneficial when LLMs produce multiple outputs in response to a single input, a common occurrence with the application of expert or decoding methods aimed at enhancing response diversity.

By applying the LTR system to these sets of results, it is possible to rank the outputs in order of their relevance and utility regarding the initial query. This practice ensures that the most relevant information is prioritized, helping users to access the most accurate and helpful content more efficiently [28].

Search engines deploy elaborate crawling algorithms capable of identifying content that may be harmful, such as hatred, pornography, or violence, even when the content doesn’t clearly seem sensitive or offensive at first glance. This capability stems from long-term exposure to vast quantities of online media and the continuous refinement of content evaluation models [128].

Integrating above modules or functionalities (already existing in search engines) into the LLM fine-tuning process allows for the incorporation of human values at the core of model alignment. By leveraging the search engine’s ability to discern and filter out undesirable content, LLMs can be trained or corrected to avoid generating or promoting material that contradicts widely accepted human values, thus ensuring the model’s outputs are aligned with ethical and societal norms [80, 148].

Search engines are commonly equipped with models that evaluate the quality of online content, often trained using extensive datasets of users’ click-through data. These models assess various aspects of content, such as its credibility, informativeness, and user engagement for quality-based search or ranking [84, 105].

By applying above evaluation models to review and rate the content generated by LLMs, search engines can provide critical feedback for the continuous alignment and improvement of the models. This feedback loop enables the identification of content quality issues, guiding subsequent fine-tuning efforts to enhance the overall quality of LLM outputs. In turn, this process contributes to the optimization of LLMs, ensuring they produce high-quality, relevant information that meets user expectations [79, 109].

LLMs are constrained by the datasets they are trained on, which, due to the extensive time required for pre-training, fine-tuning, and subsequent updates, often lack current information. Search engines, on the other hand, offer a conduit to real-time data across various domains. By leveraging retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) [60], LLMs can dynamically integrate search-engine-sourced information into their responses [48].

Specifically, RAG involves executing real-time searches based on the input query and fusing the retrieved information with the LLM’s generated content, thus enabling the model to provide up-to-date answers and insights [29]. For example, when asking GPT-4 the question “Today’s weather in Washington DC.” without access to the Internet, GPT-4 would respond the user with notice of non-access to real-time data. However, when including the top one result of the same query from Google search into the context of prompting for RAG, GPT-4 would respond the user with accurate information.

LLMs, whether general-purpose or fine-tuned for specific domains, may struggle with questions that lie outside their trained datasets or knowledge domains, known as out-of-distribution or out-of-domain queries [145, 122].

In such scenarios, search engines can serve as a powerful tool to supplement the LLMs’ responses by providing cross-domain information. Specifically, when an LLM encounters a query it is ill-equipped to answer due to domain limitations, it can utilize search engines to fetch pertinent information from a broader spectrum of knowledge. This not only expands the range of questions the LLM can handle but also enhances the depth and accuracy of its responses, making the model more versatile and capable of tackling a wider array of subjects [48].

Beyond real-time updates and cross-domain supplementation, search engines can assist LLMs in various other aspects. For instance, improving the model’s ability to discern user intent by analyzing search patterns and query refinements, bolstering content quality through insights derived from user engagement metrics, and even refining the model’s ethical and factual alignment by filtering out unreliable sources.

In addition, the broad and continuously updated dataset a search engine handles provides a wealth of supplementary information that can be used to train and enhance LLMs in effective ways, addressing a range of miscellaneous limitations that might not be readily apparent during the initial model development stages.

LLMs can significantly enhance query recommendation and completion functionalities in search engines by leveraging their deep understanding of language and context [4]. When a user begins typing a query, LLMs can analyze the partial input and generate highly relevant keyword suggestions and complete query predictions.

• •

  Query Completion: LLMs can comprehend the semantic meaning behind partial queries, allowing them to predict the user’s intent and suggest relevant keywords or phrases that align with the intended search [23].

• •

  Query Recommendation: LLMs can be fine-tuned on search query logs and user behavior data to identify trending keywords or popular patterns of queries. This information can be incorporated into the recommendation system, ensuring that suggested keywords and query completions reflect current user interests and preferences [23, 91].

Language Learning Models (LLMs) can serve a fundamental function in augmenting the capabilities of query correction within search engine systems. By leveraging their understanding of language and ability to identify and rectify errors, LLMs can assist users in refining their queries, even when faced with misspellings, grammatical errors, or incorrect inputs. Specifically, LLMs can be trained on large-scale text corpora to recognize and correct common spelling errors and grammatical errors in user queries. By understanding the structure and syntax of language, LLMs can suggest accurate spelling corrections or grammatically correct alternatives, ensuring that the search engine handle the query and retrieves relevant results [23, 26].

LLMs can significantly enhance the contextualization and personalization of query extensions in search engines. By leveraging information from cookies and browsing/search history, LLMs can tailor query extensions to individual users, providing a more relevant, personalized, and context-aware search experience [121, 63].

Specifically, LLMs can analyze user-specific data, such as browsing history, search patterns, and preferences, to build comprehensive user profiles. These profiles can be used to understand the user’s interests, expertise level, and search behavior, enabling personalized query extensions that align with their specific needs. Furthermore, LLMs can examine the context surrounding a user’s query, including the current browsing session, previous searches, and the content of the web pages visited. By understanding the broader context, LLMs can extend queries that are highly relevant to the user’s current information-seeking task [154, 142, 75].

LLMs possess the inherent capability to understand and interpret the contextual meaning and detailed information of text on web pages. This comprehension plays a vital role in pulling out an exact set of index terms and succinctly summarizing the content, both of which are key procedures in the task of document indexing [85], as follows.

• •

  Term Extraction: By deploying LLMs, search engines can comprehend every webpage in depth, distinguishing crucial information from generic data. This discernment allows for the extraction of meaningful and precise index terms that accurately reflect the page’s content [34, 86, 35].

• •

  Content Summary: LLMs can generate succinct and informative summaries of web content. These summaries provide a quick overview of the webpage, aiding in the efficient categorization and retrieval of documents. This capability is particularly beneficial for users and search engines alike, offering a glimpse into the content without the need to parse through the entire document [135, 147].

Fig 8 illustrates an example of terms extraction and summarization for indexing purposes. With the original content provided in-context of the prompt, GPT-4 could respond the terms extracted and a snippet for summarization. Obviously, one could run the prompt with LLMs multiple times to diversity the extraction and summarization results.

The capability of LLMs to measure the semantic distance or similarity between web pages is revolutionary, providing a reliable approach to automatically labeling and categorizing web pages based on their content. Specifically, LLMs evaluate the semantics of webpage content, identifying the subject matter and themes within the text. By measuring the semantic distance or similarity between webpages, LLMs can group related documents, enhancing the search engine’s ability to retrieve topically relevant results. This semantic analysis facilitates the automatic labeling and categorization of web pages [115]. LLMs can analyze the content and context of a webpage, assigning it to appropriate categories or labels based on its semantic characteristics. This process not only streamlines the indexing but also improves the user experience by enabling more accurate and thematic search results [131].

LLMs can play a critical role in training neural information retrievers and in the cold start phase of a search engine by generating a list of potential queries related to the content of a webpage. This approach ensures that the search engine is primed with relevant queries for new or less-indexed content, in following two steps.

• •

  Query Candidate Generation from Contents: By comprehensively analyzing the content of a webpage, LLMs can generate a list of potential queries that users might input when searching for similar information [153]. This capability is essential in deciphering the context and intention behind user inquiries, thereby aligning the responses generated by the search engine more accurately with user anticipations. The generated queries provide valuable training data for neural information retrievers [146].

• •

  Cold Start New Contents with Generated Candidates: By simulating real-user queries, LLMs can help these models learn to predict and rank relevant web pages more effectively, even in scenarios where direct user query data may be limited. For new or niche content that may not yet have associated user queries, the list of generated queries can kickstart the search engine’s understanding and indexing of such content. This alleviates the “cold start” problem, ensuring that all content, regardless of its current popularity or visibility, can be discovered and retrieved by users [36, 45].

One could use similar prompts in Fig. 8 to generate candidate queries from the content of a webpage.

One of the fundamental challenges in training neural networks for information retrieval lies in the necessity to accurately annotate the relevance of query-webpage pairs [3, 55]. This approach involves LLMs in the annotation process for LTR [15] from three aspects as follows.

• •

  Point-wise LTR Annotation: LLMs can assign ranking scores to individual documents relative to a query, based on relevance and user context. These point scores serve as training data for models that aim to replicate such scoring [130].

• •

  Pair-wise LTR Annotation: For pair-wise approaches, LLMs can determine the relative order between any two webpages in response to a query, considering both content relevance and user-specific information. This relative ranking aids in training algorithms to understand preferences within sets of documents [12].

• •

  List-wise LTR Annotation: In a more comprehensive capacity, LLMs can generate ranked lists of webpages based on their collective relevance and personalization for a query. This ranked order provides a template for list-wise LTR models to learn how to sequence document sets effectively [134].

Fig 9 illustrates an example of prompts and responses for Point-wise, Pair-wise, and List-wise LTR annotations, where the LLM predicts the relevance score of every retrieved result, the partial order of every two retrieved results, and the order of all retrieved results, subject to the query. By providing high-quality, relevance-annotated pairs, LLMs ensure that the training data for information retrieval neural networks is both accurate and representative of diverse query intents and informational needs [85, 104, 151].

Upon the establishment of an information retrieval model, LLMs can further enhance the search experience by leveraging users’ browsing/searching history and profiles to perform online ranking of retrieved webpages or the recommendations of contents.

• •

  Ranking: Given a set of retrieved webpages for a search query, LLMs can evaluate the contextual relevance of each retrieved webpage by considering the specific needs and interests of the user as reflected in their search history and profile. By comparing relevance scores and incorporating personalization factors, LLMs can dynamically adjust the ranking of retrieved webpages, ensuring that the most relevant and personalized results are prioritized for the user [112, 151]. Note that one can incorporate similar prompt in Fig. 9 while adding the user’s browsing history or profiles as part of contexts in the prompt for enabling online ranking with contextual personalization.

• •

  Recommendation: In addition to ranking the retrieved webpages for search, yet another way is directly recommend content that the user might be interested in. LLMs can analyze the textual data in user profiles and browsing history, which may include user preferences, demographic information, and real-time interests. For example, during a search session, if a user is looking at sports equipment, the search engine would probably recommend sports-related content or products. To achieve the goal, the so-called LLM4Rec techniques have been proposed with LLMs and prompts [132], where LLMs could be pre-trained and/or fine-tuned to understand users, items in texts [36] and predict the user-item interactions [124] accordingly.

The incorporation of Retriever-Augmented Generation (RAG) into search engines significantly enriches the result output from a generation perspective. Once relevant documents have been retrieved and ranked appropriately, RAG leverages the wealth of factual information within these sources to generate coherent, contextually relevant, and information-rich content for users. Rather than simply returning a list of documents, RAG synthesizes the information extracted from the top-ranking sources to compose responses that effectively combine the retrieved knowledge into a cohesive answer.

As shown in Fig. 10, given the retrieved results ranked in an appropriate order, RAG could synthesize a coherent response (with a summary, details, and references) to the query through simple prompting with LLMs. From a generation standpoint, the benefits of RAG in search engines may include follows.

• •

  Enhanced Accuracy and Relevance: By drawing directly from the retrieved high-quality documents, RAG ensures that the generated responses not only accurately reflect the content of these sources but also maintain a high degree of relevance to the original query.

• •

  Overall Coherence: RAG models understand the broader context obtained from the entirety of the retrieved documents, allowing for the production of coherent responses that consider multiple facets of a user’s question.

• •

  Efficient Summary Generation: They can effectively summarize and condense information from multiple documents, distilling complex data into digestible and accessible formats for the end-user.

• •

  Data-Rich Responses: RAG-enabled search engines provide detailed, well-informed answers by cross-referencing various sources, leading to a richer informational value compared to search engines that only offer links.

• •

  Natural Language Output: Leveraging the NLP capabilities of underlying language models, RAG produces answers in a conversational tone, which can improve user engagement and understanding.

By combining the robust data retrieval aspect with the advanced natural language generation capabilities of GenAI, RAG transforms search engines into powerful tools that don’t just find information–they also present it in a instantly usable way, making the search process more seamless and the results more actionable for the user.

LLMs can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of A/B testing in search engines by acting as agents that mimic user search behaviors. This application allows the direct comparison of different search result sets and their respective ranking orders. Some key features of LLMs are as follows.

• •

  Traffic Mockup: By generating a diverse range of user queries based on real-world search patterns and intentions, LLMs can simulate the natural variability in search behaviors [45, 146, 154].

• •

  Automatic Evaluation: LLMs can evaluate two sets of search results (from A/B variants) for the same query, comparing not just the relevance but the ranking order, to gauge which set is more likely to satisfy the user’s needs [15, 112, 104].

• •

  User Mimicking: Apart from evaluating results, LLMs can mimic user behaviors in interacting with these results, including clicking through links according to the perceived relevance, thus offering deeper insights into the effectiveness of ranking algorithms [50, 7].

Fig. 11 illustrates an example of automatic evaluation that compares the two sets of search results under the same query, from the perspectives of relevance, timeness, and the ranking order. In this example, through encapsulating the titles and snippets of webpages in the order of search results into the prompt, GPT-4 could respond the evaluation results automatically from the perspectives desired, and formates the result in a programming-friendly way. Actually, GPT-4 can also generate interpretations on the comparison. Due to the page limit, we haven’t include the full response here.

Through text understanding, LLMs can interpret the user interactions with search engines. This capability allows for a deep understanding of user satisfaction and intent changes throughout their search trajectories. Some key features of LLMs are as follows.

• •

  Sequential Behavior Modeling: LLMs can analyze patterns in click-throughs and the order of interactions to infer the relevance and quality of the search results provided. By examining the changes in user queries during a search session, LLMs can infer shifts in user intentions or pinpoint when a user’s needs become more specific [125, 70, 50].

• •

  Satisfaction Assessment: The change in these sequential behaviors can signal how well the search engine accommodates evolving user needs. LLMs can assess whether the search engine helps users find desired information with minimal steps of user interactions (e.g., clicks or queries), indicating the efficiency and effectiveness of the search process [50, 72].

LLMs can play a vital role in transforming raw evaluation data, including A/B testing outcomes and user interaction analyses, into comprehensive dashboards that highlight key aspects of user experience, as follows.

• •

  Data Aggregation: By aggregating data from numerous comparisons and user interactions, LLMs can pinpoint critical performance metrics such as click-through rates, query refinement patterns, and satisfaction indicators [60, 43].

• •

  Data Interpreter: Advanced data synthesis capabilities enable LLMs to identify patterns and trends suggesting areas for improvement, whether in search algorithms, result ranking, or user interface design [41, 77].

• •

  Summary & Reporting: Leveraging their language generation capabilities, LLMs can generate insightful, understandable narratives around the data, complemented by visual dashboards that highlight search engine performance from the user’s perspective [149].

These dashboards can serve as invaluable resources for developers and designers looking to enhance search engine technologies.