Contrastive Reflection for Iterative Prompt Optimization

LLM agents are becoming central to information retrieval: they issue retrieval queries, synthesize answers, and increasingly serve as judges for IR evaluation. Improving the prompts that control these agents is an optimization problem, but in applied IR settings it often looks less like blind search and more like debugging. Engineers need to know which behavior failed, which nearby behavior still worked, what distinguishes the two, and whether a prompt edit improves held-out quality without introducing regressions. We present Contrastive Reflection, an iterative prompt-optimization framework for agentic IR workflows. The framework starts from a task-centric quality definition: QA agents expose retrieval or reasoning traces, and grading agents expose dimension-level scores and rationales. These structured traces are used to identify error-anchored behavioral slices, add nearby successful examples from the same region, and ask a Teacher LLM to propose a targeted prompt edit. Candidate edits are accepted only when validation performance improves, optionally subject to regression checks. We instantiate the framework with a tree-based slice selector, but the contribution is the contrastive reflection loop rather than the tree itself. On a public HotpotQA retrieval-augmented QA setup, one tree-selected contrastive repair improves held-out exact-match accuracy from 51.4% to 60.4%. Failure-only and random-evidence variants improve less and break more previously correct examples. A light instruction-only comparison places the method near modern prompt optimizers: MIPROv2 reaches 59.4% and GEPA 57.0%. The result is an interpretable optimization loop for IR agents, aimed at making prompt repair more inspectable and validation-driven.

Designing Reward Signals for Portable Query Generation: A Case Study in Industrial Semantic Job Search

Job-search platforms rely on low-bandwidth query interfaces that often fail to capture the high-dimensional complexity of candidate profiles. We present an end-to-end RLAIF (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) framework to generate \emph{portable} job search queries, terms that abstract away seeker-specific identifiers while preserving generalizable qualifications. This task introduces a highly adversarial reward surface where policy optimization frequently exploits flaws in LLM-as-judge rubrics, resulting in degenerate verbatim-copying behaviors. We conducted comprehensive empirical experiments to isolate the impact of optimization mechanics against structured reward engineering. Our results demonstrate that for critic-free optimizers, performance is overwhelmingly dictated by robust reward shaping, rendering the specific choice of algorithm largely immaterial. While critic-free per-rollout baseline methods (RLOO and REINFORCE++) natively resist reward-hacking, the group-relative advantage normalization in GRPO appears uniquely sensitive to spurious reward signals, making it disproportionately susceptible to exploitation. We show that introducing a deterministic, rule-based reward floor to correct for rewards assigned to verbatim copying mitigates this failure mode, resulting in a substantial $+0.147$ quality improvement on a cross-family evaluation judge. Ultimately, we show that the training-time reward model inflates performance gains by $2.4\times$, confirming that the training success is fundamentally dependent on enforcing reward-shaping disciplines rather than selecting alternative optimizers.

SAGE: Scalable AI Governance & Evaluation

Evaluating relevance in large-scale search systems is fundamentally constrained by the governance gap between nuanced, resource-constrained human oversight and the high-throughput requirements of production systems. While traditional approaches rely on engagement proxies or sparse manual review, these methods often fail to capture the full scope of high-impact relevance failures. We present \textbf{SAGE} (Scalable AI Governance \& Evaluation), a framework that operationalizes high-quality human product judgment as a scalable evaluation signal. At the core of SAGE is a bidirectional calibration loop where natural-language \emph{Policy}, curated \emph{Precedent}, and an \emph{LLM Surrogate Judge} co-evolve. SAGE systematically resolves semantic ambiguities and misalignments, transforming subjective relevance judgment into an executable, multi-dimensional rubric with near human-level agreement. To bridge the gap between frontier model reasoning and industrial-scale inference, we apply teacher-student distillation to transfer high-fidelity judgments into compact student surrogates at \textbf{92$\times$} lower cost. Deployed within LinkedIn Search ecosystems, SAGE guided model iteration through simulation-driven development, distilling policy-aligned models for online serving and enabling rapid offline evaluation. In production, it powered policy oversight that measured ramped model variants and detected regressions invisible to engagement metrics. Collectively, these drove a \textbf{0.25\%} lift in LinkedIn daily active users.