MOSS: A Production Framework for Monitoring and Diagnosing Semantic Failures in Search and Recommendation Systems
Organizations: Data Sciences, Target Corporation Minneapolis, MN, USA · Data Sciences, Target Corporation Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Abstract
Detecting semantic failures in production recommendation and search systems is hard: behavioral metrics lag by days, manual review does not scale, and most LLM evaluation frameworks are designed for offline, fixed datasets rather than continuous operational monitoring. We present Model Sanity Service (MOSS), a production framework that addresses this operational gap by embedding LLM-based relevance scoring into a recurring monitoring loop with targeted sampling, strategy-aware prompting, structured alerting, and diagnostic follow-up prompting that categorizes failures into actionable root causes. MOSS has been running in production at a large U.S. retailer for over six months across recommendation, search, and offer surfaces, and has surfaced two confirmed serving defects. For one of these, a backfill blending defect, MOSS quantified the impact of the proposed fix offline as a 76.4% relative reduction in alert rate. On a 498-pair human-annotated recommendation benchmark, frontier LLM judges achieve higher F1 and AUC point estimates than non-LLM baselines (internal production embeddings and SBERT), with the largest gains on strategy-dependent tasks requiring intent-level relational reasoning. The same judge, score scale, and threshold transfer to a 466-pair search benchmark spanning 21 queries with only a surface-specific prompt adaptation, achieving strong F1 and AUC without retuning. These results show that a single LLM monitoring framework can provide useful, actionable quality signals across multiple product discovery surfaces in a large-scale e-commerce setting.
Figures & tables
| Seed item | Low-scored outputs | MOSS judgment |
| BRAND_A SIZE_A PRODUCT_NAME_A (specific type of flavored beer, 6pk) | Diapers; oven cleaner | Scores: all 1/10. Items are unrelated household or party supplies rather than beverages. |
| BRAND_D SIZE_D PRODUCT_NAME_D (artificial Christmas tree) | Halloween decoration; toy-car gift wrap | Scores: 2/10 and 1/10. Items are off-season or off-theme for Christmas tree decor. |
| BRAND_G SIZE_G PRODUCT_NAME_G (pacifier gift set for baby) | Teen fiction novel; adult skincare set; board game for ages 12+ (among 10 items with scores ) | Scores: all across the 10 flagged outputs. Failure modes span category mismatches (non-baby products), intent mismatches with infant-care essentials, and attribute mismatches around age group and product function. |
| Model | N | T | Prec. | Rec. | F1 [95% CI] | FPR | AUC [95% CI] |
| LLM judges | |||||||
| o3 (original) | 421 | 3 | 0.574 | 0.753 | 0.652 [0.561, 0.726] | 0.126 | 0.871 [0.827, 0.911] |
| o3 (calibrated, deployed) | 419 | 3 | 0.529 | 0.584 | 0.556 [0.458, 0.646] | 0.117 | 0.829 [0.779, 0.879] |
| GPT-5 | 421 | 2 | 0.527 | 0.766 | 0.624 [0.535, 0.698] | 0.154 | 0.836 [0.785, 0.879] |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 421 | 2 | 0.573 | 0.714 | 0.636 [0.543, 0.710] | 0.119 | 0.856 [0.809, 0.898] |
| Mixtral 8 7B | 397 | 5 | 0.380 | 0.721 | 0.497 [0.409, 0.577] | 0.243 | 0.769 [0.707, 0.826] |
| Model | T | Prec | Rec | F1 | FS-F1 | Opt-F1 |
| o3 | 3 | 0.616 | 0.739 | 0.648 | 0.652 | 0.652 |
| GPT-5 | 2 | 0.554 | 0.756 | 0.622 | 0.624 | 0.624 |
| Gemini | 2 | 0.623 | 0.713 | 0.633 | 0.636 | 0.636 |
| Strategy | Model | T | Prec. | Rec. | F1 | FPR |
| Related | Prod. emb. | 0.603 | 0.627 | 0.821 | 0.711 | 0.207 |
| SBERT | 0.264 | 0.684 | 0.667 | 0.675 | 0.130 | |
| o3 | 3 | 0.525 | 0.821 | 0.640 | 0.315 | |
| GPT-5 | 2 | 0.571 | 0.821 | 0.674 | 0.261 | |
| Gemini | 2 | 0.727 | 0.821 | 0.771 | 0.130 | |
| Bundles | Prod. emb. | 0.603 | 0.250 | 0.421 | 0.314 | 0.188 |
| Strategy | N | Mean | Median | Alert rate |
| Related | 1,065 | 5.26 | 6.0 | 32.8% |
| Substitutes | 461 | 6.54 | 7.0 | 13.0% |
| Bundles | 247 | 4.88 | 5.0 | 38.5% |
| All | 1,773 | 5.54 | 6.0 | 28.4% |
| Task | Reviewed | Actionable | Wrong/unclear | Rate |
| Bundles | 46 | 36 | 10 | 78.3% |
| Related | 53 | 45 | 8 | 84.9% |
| Substitutes | 17 | 17 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total | 116 | 98 | 18 | 84.5% |
| Placement | Seeds | Pairs | Mean score | Pair alert rate |
| Legacy (live) | 99 | 995 | 4.68 | 41.6% [35.5, 48.4] |
| Enriched (fix) | 99 | 348 | 6.93 | 9.8% [5.4, 14.8] |
| Surface | N | Positives | Rate | Rate type | Scope |
| Recs alerts | 116 | 98 | 84.5% | confirmation | Second-stage follow-up alerts, original prompt, |
| Recs benchmark | 498 | 87 | 17.5% | prevalence | Human-labeled benchmark; production-embedding comparison on 421-pair coverage subset |
| Offers | 113 | 94 | 83.2% | confirmation | Alert-enriched review set with adjudication |
| Search benchmark | 466 | 186 | 39.9% | prevalence | Human-labeled, 21 queries; o3 ; F1=0.831, AUC=0.884 |
| Prec. | Rec. | F1 [95% CI] | |
| Overall | 0.762 | 0.914 | 0.831 [0.791, 0.868] |
| AUC [95% CI] | 0.884 [0.852, 0.911] | ||
| PR-AUC [95% CI] | 0.742 [0.678, 0.804] | ||
| Macro-F1 (21 queries) | 0.597 | ||
| Selected per-query F1 (N, human alerts) | |||
| Query S1 (20, 9) | 1.000 | ||
Recommender Systems
Recommender systems predict and rank items for people using interaction histories, content, context, and feedback.
See all 521 papers