Not all clicks are equal. Industrial ads ranking decouples conversion probability into click-through rate (CTR) and post-click conversion rate (CVR), yet treats every click as the same event. In reality, users provide a free, self-generated signal of intent through their physical UI interactions. Different click types on the same ad exhibit a 4-fold difference in actual conversion rates. By conflating these signals, the standard CVR model under-predicts high-intent clicks and over-predicts low-intent ones, which is a bias masked by near-perfect aggregate calibration. We propose MARCO (Multi-intent Ads Ranking Composition Optimization), a framework that resolves this bias by decomposing each click by intent. Using the logged click type as a free behavioral label, MARCO trains per-intent CVR heads on homogeneous populations, and at serving time composes their per-intent CVR estimates under a predicted distribution over intents. Theoretically, we prove that decomposition never raises population risk, give the exact headroom under squared loss and non-negativity under the deployed loss, and show through a routing-efficiency dial how much of it reaches serving. Because the population-optimal score is unchanged, any gain is a finite-capacity estimation and calibration effect that we validated both offline and online. For deployment at scale, we further cast multi-impression, multi-click attribution as credit assignment with a bias-variance tradeoff analogous to RL return estimation, showing last-impression, first-click attribution is the low-bias, low-variance, deterministic choice under production constraints, and derive three consistency conditions enforced end-to-end at scale. Deployed at binary intent granularity, MARCO corrects per-intent calibration to approximately 100%, lifts conversions per click by +2.80%, and drives +0.98% cumulative improvement in topline metrics.
Web search, product search, and question-answering retrieval systems often assign a relevance label and confidence score to each query-candidate pair. The relevance label describes how well a page, product, or passage matches the query, while the confidence often guides downstream use or fallback decisions. Post-hoc calibration is therefore needed because misaligned confidence can make systems over-trust wrong predictions or unnecessarily defer correct ones. However, calibration mainly aligns confidence with average correctness, and does not remove predicted-label-dependent reliability differences that remain within the same calibrated confidence level. We address this gap with Label-wise Monotone Reliability Projection (MRP), which learns label-wise monotone functions that map calibrated confidence to correctness reliability while preserving the original predicted labels and class probabilities. The resulting reliability score reranks fixed predictions according to residual risk. Across six information access relevance datasets and multiple post-hoc calibrators, MRP improves reliability reranking and average fallback utility while preserving full-coverage accuracy and ECE. Structural ablations show that the main gains come from label-wise residual reliability rather than from global confidence remapping. We further analyze when MRP reliability scores can be embedded back into top-label probability geometry, showing that this projection is useful as a compatibility analysis but is distinct from the main reliability-reranking objective. The implementation will be made publicly available.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) typically retrieves a fixed number of passages for every query. This is wasteful when the reader already knows the answer, and it can be harmful when irrelevant or partially relevant passages distract the reader. We formulate adaptive RAG as calibrated retrieval-budget allocation: given a query, decide whether to answer closed-book, retrieve a compact context (k=1), retrieve a full context (k=5), or abstain. The contribution is a probability interface rather than a new raw uncertainty signal. We calibrate sequence log-probability and prefix-logit uncertainty signals into probabilities of correctness, then use these probabilities for graded context selection, selective abstention, and explicit latency/token trade-offs. Across core QA experiments on TriviaQA, Natural Questions, and MS MARCO, with auxiliary PopQA motivation and Qwen/Llama family checks, diagnostic out-of-fold calibration improves probability quality dramatically: for sequence log-probability, ECE drops from 0.275 to 0.062 on TriviaQA, 0.643 to 0.009 on NQ, and 0.711 to 0.031 on MS MARCO. Graded retrieval improves full-context and passage-budget frontiers for both our signal and TARG-style prefix entropy/margin, while retrieval-call AUC remains essentially tied with binary gating because k=1 is still a retrieval call. Held-out train/validation/test threshold experiments report deployable operating points. At matched-accuracy frontier operating points, a measured cost model reveals that gating is not universally faster: it increases latency by about 27% on Qwen3-8B but saves about 8% on Qwen3-32B. These results support a nuanced view of adaptive RAG: calibrated confidence is best understood as a reusable interface for allocating retrieval budget under task and system constraints.
Md Omar Faruk Rokon, Shasvat Desai, Hong Yao +1cs.IR cs.AI
How can we generate high-quality relevance annotations at scale without the cost and delays of human labeling? Relevance annotations are the backbone of search ranking systems which is needed for training data preparation, NDCG evaluation, and root cause analysis. However, human annotation is slow and off-the-shelf LLMs suffer from accuracy on domain-specific tasks. We propose a calibrated model cascade, a systematic approach for cost-efficient offline relevance annotation by routing queries through progressively larger fine-tuned classifiers. Our central insight is that accuracy and cost are orthogonal optimizations: domain-specific fine-tuning drives accuracy, cascading drives cost, and per-class isotonic calibration adds a small but reliable gain on top. Our contribution is threefold: (a) we decompose the gains and show that fine-tuning contributes 20 accuracy points while cascading is approximately accuracy-neutral but halves compute cost, (b) we introduce per-class isotonic calibration as one component of the cascade, contributing a small but statistically significant gain (+0.6 points over the strongest calibration baseline), and (c) we validate the system in production across six offline use cases, processing 150M+ annotations and enabling faster experimentation cycles. Our work is a building block for scalable, high-quality offline annotation pipelines in search and advertising systems.
Retrieval effectiveness varies substantially across queries, making it important to estimate ranking quality before relevance judgments are available. Query performance prediction (QPP) addresses this need, but most existing methods rely on external predictors after retrieval or reranking. In this paper, we study \textit{reranker-internal QPP}: can an LLM reranker estimate the quality of the ranking it has just produced? We investigate both training-free and training-based approaches. For training-free estimation, we examine metric-specific self-consistency across sampled rankings and verbalized confidence produced directly by the reranker. Experiments on TREC Deep Learning 2019--2022 with four LLMs show that self-consistency is competitive with the state-of-the-art (SOTA) approach and better calibrated in almost all settings, while direct verbalized confidence is severely overconfident. To improve verbalized confidence, we propose two supervised methods, Verb-Num and Verb-List, which enable LLM rerankers to produce calibrated ranking-quality estimates with only a few additional output tokens.
Ashmi Banerjee, Adithi Satish, Wolfgang Wörndl +1cs.AI
Evaluating nuanced conversational travel recommendations is challenging when human annotations are costly and standard metrics ignore stakeholder-centric goals. We study LLMs-as-Judges for sustainable city-trip lists across four dimensions -- relevance, diversity, sustainability, and popularity balance, and propose a three-phase calibration framework: (1) baseline judging with multiple LLMs, (2) expert evaluation to identify systematic misalignment, and (3) dimension-specific calibration via rules and few-shot examples. Across two recommendation settings, we observe model-specific biases and high dimension-level variance, even when judges agree on overall rankings. Calibration clarifies reasoning per dimension but exposes divergent interpretations of sustainability, highlighting the need for transparent, bias-aware LLM evaluation. Prompts and code are released for reproducibility: https://github.com/ashmibanerjee/trs-llm-calibration.