Conversational Query Rewriting (CQR) aims to rewrite ambiguous queries to achieve more efficient conversational search. Early studies have predominantly focused on the rewriting in isolation, ignoring the feedback from query rewrite, passage retrieval and response generation in the rewriting process. To address this issue, we propose Multi-Faceted Self-Consistent Preference Aligned CQR (MSPA-CQR). Specifically, we first construct self-consistent preference alignment data from three dimensions (rewriting, retrieval, and response) to generate more diverse rewritten queries. Then we propose prefix guided multi-faceted direct preference optimization to learn preference information from three different dimensions. The experimental results show that our MSPA-CQR is effective in both in- and out-of-distribution scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An example of CQR. Green and blue represent the key information for retrieval that was omitted in Q3 .
Figure 2: An overview of MSPA-CQR, including the two stages of Multi-Faceted Preference Data Construction and Prefix-Guided Multi-Faceted Preference Optimization.
Figure 3: Kendall’s Tau correlation between the consistency score ranking lists of different preferences on TopiOCQA (left) and QReCC (right).
Type
System
Backbone
TopiOCQA
QReCC
MRR
NDCG
R@10
R@100
MRR
NDCG
R@10
R@100
w/o Feedback
Sparse (BM25)
EDIRCS
T5-base
-
-
-
-
41.2
-
62.7
90.2
LLM-Aided
ChatGPT
-
-
-
-
49.4
46.5
67.1
88.2
LLM4CS
ChatGPT
27.9
26.4
48.4
71.1
51.6
49.3
75.3
92.6
CHIQ
LLaMA2-7B
25.6
23.5
44.7
-
54.3
51.9
78.5
-
Table 1: Evaluation results of various retrieval system types on the test sets of TopiOCQA and QReCC, where all reported values of the baselines originated from their papers.
Rewrite
Retrieval
Response
MRR
NDCG
R@10
R@100
✓
✓
✓
41.4
39.5
63.5
77.4
✓
✓
40.4
38.9
62.1
77.1
✓
✓
40.2
38.5
60.5
76.6
✓
✓
39.6
37.8
60.4
76.4
✓
38.1
36.7
57.8
74.7
✓
37.3
35.8
56.7
73.5
Table 2: Ablation study under the preference guidance of rewriting, retrieval, response, and the combinations.
TopiOCQA
Variant
MRR
NDCG
R@10
R@100
MSPA-CQR ( Ours )
41.4
39.5
63.5
77.4
w/o. Prefix Guidance
39.2
36.8
60.7
74.3
w/o. MDPO
29.1
27.8
48.6
65.8
w/o. NLI
40.8
38.7
62.7
76.8
w/o. Query Expansion
37.4
36.3
61.6
75.8
Table 3: Ablation study for each component of MSPA-CQR and different LLMs.
Figure 4: A comparison of the linguistic features of rewritten queries generated under three preference guides. “N-grams div.” refers to the diversity of n-grams ( n=2 ), and “Edit dist.” refers to the Levenshtein distance.
Figure 5: The intersection size of passages obtained through dense retrieval using rewritten queries guided by different preferences on TopiOCQA (left) and QReCC (right).
Dialogue Context
Q: What did Ned Kelly do?
A: An Australian bushranger, outlaw, gang leader and convicted police murderer.
Q: What happened after he was locked up for the night?
A: While he was escorted by four policemen, he absconded and ran, taking refuge in a shoemaker’s shop.
Q: Did it say what happened in the shoemakers shop?
Gold Passage : On 18 September 1877 in Benalla, Kelly , while drunk…he absconded and ran, taking refuge in a shoemaker’s shop . The police and the shop owner tried to handcuff him but failed…
Table 4: A case study on TopiOCQA, where “Rank” refers to the ranking of the retrieved gold passage, and “Not Found” means that there is no gold passage in the top-100 retrieved passages.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Split
#Conv.
#Turns(Qry.)
#Collection
TopiOCQA
Train
3,509
45,450
25M
Test
205
2,514
QReCC
Train
10,823
63,501
54M
Test
2,775
16,451
CAsT-19
Test
50
479
38M
CAsT-20
Test
25
208
Appendix
Table 5: Statistics of conversational search datasets.
System
Backbone
CAsT-19
CAsT-20
CAsT-21
MRR
N@3
R@10
MRR
N@3
R@10
MRR
N@3
R@10
E5-Mistral
Mistral-7B
62.2
31.3
9.5
22.0
15.4
8.4
48.2
32.5
20.5
HyDE
ChatGPT-3.5
55.6
39.2
10.0
44.8
29.3
16.9
-
-
-
Query2doc
ChatGPT-3.5
58.8
42.4
11.6
48.6
32.5
17.3
-
-
-
InstructorR
ChatGPT-3.5
61.2
46.6
10.4
43.7
29.6
8.3
46.7
32.5
18.4
LLM4CS
ChatGPT-3.5
70.4
46.8
11.7
58.6
41.5
19.3
66.1
46.9
24.4
Appendix
Table 6: Zero-shot retrieval performances under the dense retrieval (ANCE).
TopiOCQA
Variant
MRR
NDCG
R@10
R@100
MSPA-CQR ( Ours )
41.4
39.5
63.5
77.4
w/o. Length Penalty Term
41.1
39.0
62.8
76.9
w/ passages
41.8
40.2
64.1
77.6
MSPA-CQR (CombGMNZ)
40.5
38.8
62.6
76.8
MSPA-CQR (Log_ISR)
40.7
39.1
62.4
76.5
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation experiments of different modules in the MSPA-CQR.
Figure 6: The prompt used to construct the response preference data based on retrieval.
Response Generation
Sparse Retrieval
Dense Retrieval
TopiOCQA
0.74
0.82
0.77
QReCC
0.79
0.84
0.81
Appendix
Table 8: Kendall’s Tau correlation between self-consistency scores and downstream task performance.
Figure 7: The trend of R@100 on TopiOCQA with the change in the number of sampled candidate rewritten queries.
Figure 8: The trend of MRR on TopiOCQA with the change in the number of sampled candidate rewritten queries.
TopiOCQA
Different Values of T
MRR
NDCG
R@10
R@100
MSPA-CQR (T = 10)
40.7
38.4
62.7
76.8
MSPA-CQR (T = 50)
41.6
39.8
64.1
78.2
MSPA-CQR (T = 100)
41.4
39.5
63.5
77.4
Appendix
Table 9: Analysis of setting different numbers of retrieved passages on TopiOCQA.
Method
ROUGE 1
ROUGE L
BertScore
LLM4CS
29.20
27.78
85.88
RETPO
26.01
24.39
85.74
MSPA-CQR
31.97
29.85
86.72
Appendix
Table 10: Performance analysis of end-to-end question answering using the MSPA-CQR and baseline methods.
TopiOCQA
Variant
MRR
NDCG
R@10
R@100
MSPA-CQR ( Llama-2-7b-hf )
41.4
39.5
63.5
77.4
MSPA-CQR ( Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct )
40.5
38.8
62.6
76.8
MSPA-CQR ( Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct )
40.7
39.1
62.4
76.5
Appendix
Table 11: Analysis of using different backbones in MSPA-CQR.
TopiOCQA
Variant
MRR
NDCG
R@10
R@100
LT rewrite
LT retrieval
MSPA-CQR
30.6
29.5
51.9
75.2
1.32
0.00079
MSPA-CQR (merge)
29.4
28.1
50.1
74.0
0.69
0.00034
RETPO
28.3
26.5
48.3
73.1
0.57
0.00031
Appendix
Table 12: Analysis of the trade-off between performance and efficiency.
Figure 9: A case of merging multiple rewritten queries into a single query.
Dialogue Context
Q: What is quoll?
A: They are carnivorous marsupials.
Q: Where are they found?
A: Australia and New Guinea.
Q: Where did the latter get it’s name from?
A: UNANSWERABLE.
Appendix
Table 13: A case study on TopiOCQA.
Dialogue Context
Q: What happened in 1977 to Journey the band?
A: Journey’s album sales did not improve and Columbia Records requested that they change their musical style and add a frontman, with whom keyboardist Gregg Rolie could share lead vocal duties.
Q: Why did they change their musical direction?
A: Journey hired Robert Fleischman and made the transition to a more popular style, akin to that of Foreigner and Boston.
Q: What was Robert’s role with the band?
A: Lead singer.
Appendix
Table 14: A case study on QReCC.
Dialogue Context
Q: Where did the uk come in eurovision song contest?
A: The United Kingdom came in 26th place in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019.
Q: What song did the country perform?
A: The United Kingdom’s selected song for the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 was Bigger than Us by Michael Rice.
Q: How many times has the uk participated in the contest?
A: The United Kingdom has participated in the Eurovision Song Contest 62 times.
Multi-turn interactions with LLMs are becoming increasingly common in information-seeking scenarios. However, user queries are often ambiguous and context-dependent, making them ill-suited for direct use as retriever queries. Conversational query reformulation (CQR) addresses this issue by rewriting the current utterance into a stand-alone query grounded in the dialogue history. Recent LLM-based CQR approaches achieve strong performance; however, their repeated LLM invocations and misalignment with downstream retrievers remain challenges. In this work, we begin from the observation that retrievers are highly sensitive to content ordering: simply reordering the same content can lead to changes in retrieval coverage and performance. Based on this, we propose a novel training-free method that generates a very large number of queries with minimal LLM usage by compositionally combining a small set of atomic components. We further apply LLM reasoning to construct a high-quality document set that balances precision and recall while capturing the user's core intent. Our framework generalizes across both open- and closed-source LLMs as well as dense and sparse retrievers. It achieves strong performance on four widely used conversational benchmarks, with up to 22.5% relative MRR improvement over the previous state-of-the-art baseline with far fewer LLM calls.
Yunah Jang, Kang-il Lee, Joongbo Shin +1
Dept. of ECE, Seoul National University · LG AI Research
Short-video search requires compact query rewriters that infer personalized intent from brief, ambiguous queries under strict latency constraints. The challenge is to decide when personalization is warranted and generate a reformulation that preserves the user's immediate information need. A rewriter optimized for fluency or engagement may still introduce unsupported details and redirect the search toward a different intent. Existing methods often underutilize users' actual reformulations and behavioral traces, relying instead on synthetic reasoning and indirect behavioral rewards that may produce more engaging candidates but cause intent drift. To build an effective rewriter that remains faithful to user intent, we propose WeFair, Fidelity-Aware Alignment from Human Feedback for Personalized Query Rewriting in WeChat short-video search. WeFair assigns real user behavioral signals to a progression from demonstration to preference to verification. We first mine actual human reformulations from search sessions, then apply multidimensional LLM screening and contextual verification to filter unsupported transitions without extensive manual annotation. During training, we begin with a supervised curriculum that progressively builds rewriting capabilities from large-scale human personalized query demonstrations, and then use direct preference optimization to align with users' subsequent consumption. In the final on-policy optimization stage, we construct a strict verification reward based on actual human reformulations to further boost performance with group relative policy optimization. Further analysis shows that auxiliary rewards can activate more rollout groups in GRPO but reduce intent fidelity. Online A/B testing in WeChat short-video search shows a 1.576% relative increase in effective clicked-query rate (VV>10s) and a 1.731% relative reduction in query reformulation rate.
Prompt-only, single-step LLM query rewriting, where a rewrite is generated from the query alone without retrieval feedback, is commonly used in production RAG pipelines, but its effect on dense retrieval is poorly understood. We present a systematic empirical study across three BEIR benchmarks, two dense retrievers, and multiple training configurations, and find strongly domain-dependent behavior: rewriting degrades nDCG@10 by 9.0 percent on FiQA, improves it by 5.1 percent on TREC-COVID, and has no significant effect on SciFact. We identify a consistent mechanism: degradations co-occur with reduced lexical alignment between rewritten queries and relevant documents, as rewriting replaces domain-specific terms in already well-matched queries. In contrast, improvements arise when rewriting shifts queries toward corpus-preferred terminology and resolves inconsistent nomenclature. Lexical substitution occurs in 95 percent of rewrites across all outcome groups, showing that effectiveness depends on the direction of substitution rather than substitution itself. We also study selective rewriting and find that simple feature-based gating can reduce worst-case regressions but does not reliably outperform never rewriting, with even oracle selection offering only modest gains. Overall, these results show that prompt-only rewriting can be harmful in well-optimized verticals and suggest that domain-adaptive post-training is a safer strategy when supervision or implicit feedback is available.