Aligning Large Language Models with Searcher Preferences

The way customers search for and choose products is changing with the rise of large language models (LLMs). LLM-based search, or generative engines, provides direct product recommendations to users, rather than traditional online search results that require users to explore options themselves. However, these recommendations are strongly influenced by the initial retrieval order of LLMs, which disadvantages small businesses and independent creators by limiting their visibility. In this work, we propose CORE, an optimization method that Controls Output Rankings in gEnerative Engines for LLM-based search. Since the LLM's interactions with the search engine are black-box, CORE targets the content returned by search engines as the primary means of influencing output rankings. Specifically, CORE optimizes retrieved content by appending strategically designed optimization content to steer the ranking of outputs. We introduce three types of optimization content: string-based, reasoning-based, and review-based, demonstrating their effectiveness in shaping output rankings. To evaluate CORE in realistic settings, we introduce ProductBench, a large-scale benchmark with 15 product categories and 200 products per category, where each product is associated with its top-10 recommendations collected from Amazon's search interface. Extensive experiments on four LLMs with search capabilities (GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5, Claude-4, and Grok-3) demonstrate that CORE achieves an average Promotion Success Rate of 91.4% @Top-5, 86.6% @Top-3, and 80.3% @Top-1, across 15 product categories, outperforming existing ranking manipulation methods while preserving the fluency of optimized content.

Equipping large language models (LLMs) with search engines via reinforcement learning (RL) promises effective search agents. However, adaptively balancing internal parametric knowledge with external search remains a challenge, as overreliance on search introduces unnecessary cost and risks exposure to noisy or malicious content, while relying solely on parametric knowledge risks hallucination. Prior efforts mitigate search overuse through tool-call reward shaping, which requires heavy reward engineering and conflates necessary and unnecessary search. To address these limitations, we revisit the evaluation of search agents through an F1-based decision metric, revealing that prior methods often overlook readily available parametric knowledge. Motivated by this, we propose AdaSearch, a simple two-stage, outcome-driven RL framework that disentangles problem-solving from the decision to search, making the decision process explicit and interpretable. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AdaSearch significantly improves search-decision quality and reduces unnecessary search calls, with only a small trade-off in QA accuracy relative to always-search.

Search-augmented language models can use external evidence to compensate for limitations in parametric knowledge, but search is not uniformly beneficial: models may call search for questions they can already answer, or rely on noisy evidence when correction, clarification, or abstention would be more appropriate. We formulate this as an instance-level search-routing problem: deciding whether search is needed to improve task success relative to a no-search execution. To derive supervision, we compare no-search and forced-search outcomes for the same question and construct an oracle over NO SEARCH, SEARCH, and UNSOLVED based on task-specific success. Using this oracle as both an evaluation criterion and a learning signal, we train search-routing policies with supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization, improving routing macro-F1 on oracle-eligible examples from 0.7082 to 0.8235 for Gemma E2B and from 0.7053 to 0.8365 for Qwen3.5-4B. Further analysis shows that the learned policies reduce model-specific routing failures: Gemma primarily learns no-search restraint, while Qwen further reduces missed search; residual UNSOLVED cases reveal heterogeneous bottlenecks involving model capacity, retrieval budget, evidence use, and policy behavior.