aiqbench analysis
This research addresses a critical flaw in LLM-based information retrieval evaluation where generated queries inadvertently leak answer-side knowledge, violating the pre-search user boundary. By introducing "concept provenance," the authors provide a framework to distinguish between natural human variation and this specific intrusion type, revealing that while such concepts are common, they explain less than 2% of aggregate evaluation variance. The study concludes that post-generation selection using this framework can effectively eliminate these intrusions without altering prompt conditions.
The "Curse of Knowledge" in LLM Query Simulation: Concept Provenance for Tracing Answer-Side Intrusion
arXiv:2608.25245v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-generated search queries are widely used to augment IR evaluation, yet they may contain concepts that presuppose answer-side document knowledge, violating the information-access boundary of pre-search users. Existing validation metrics, including overlap, diversity, and effectiveness, cannot distinguish rare human-tail variation from candidate answer-side intrusion. We introduce concept provenance, a framework that assigns query concepts to backstory-supported, human-central, human-tail, and candidate answer-side zones, operationalizing a boundary that retrieval metrics alone cannot detect. Applying concept provenance to 77,004 queries across 100 UQV100 topics, 8 LLMs, and 5 prompt conditions with two extraction pipelines, we obtain a cross-pipeline token-HCIR Spearman rho of 1.0 over five condition means. Candidate answer-side concepts constitute 7.40 percent of non-generic concepts and appear in 97 of 100 topics, with topic explaining approximately 67 percent of variance. Human validation yields 68.2 percent relaxed precision, revealing two mechanisms: knowledge intrusion at 45.5 percent and deployment intrusion at 45.0 percent. Diagnostic probes show disproportionate localized retrieval effects, with deletion effect size d = -0.47 compared with d = -0.34 for random deletion, but these concepts explain less than 2 percent of aggregate evaluation variance. Concept provenance therefore serves as a boundary-compliance diagnostic rather than an evaluation-shift predictor. Under the tested conditions, no prompt condition eliminates intrusion; post-generation concept-provenance selection achieves 99 percent elimination.
Abstract:LLM-generated search queries are widely used to augment IR evaluation, yet they may contain concepts that presuppose answer-side document knowledge, violating the information-access boundary of pre-search users. Existing validation metrics, including overlap, diversity, and effectiveness, cannot distinguish rare human-tail variation from candidate answer-side intrusion. We introduce concept provenance, a framework that assigns query concepts to backstory-supported, human-central, human-tail, and candidate answer-side zones, operationalizing a boundary that retrieval metrics alone cannot detect. Applying concept provenance to 77,004 queries across 100 UQV100 topics, 8 LLMs, and 5 prompt conditions with two extraction pipelines, we obtain a cross-pipeline token-HCIR Spearman rho of 1.0 over five condition means. Candidate answer-side concepts constitute 7.40 percent of non-generic concepts and appear in 97 of 100 topics, with topic explaining approximately 67 percent of variance. Human validation yields 68.2 percent relaxed precision, revealing two mechanisms: knowledge intrusion at 45.5 percent and deployment intrusion at 45.0 percent. Diagnostic probes show disproportionate localized retrieval effects, with deletion effect size d = -0.47 compared with d = -0.34 for random deletion, but these concepts explain less than 2 percent of aggregate evaluation variance. Concept provenance therefore serves as a boundary-compliance diagnostic rather than an evaluation-shift predictor. Under the tested conditions, no prompt condition eliminates intrusion; post-generation concept-provenance selection achieves 99 percent elimination.
12 pages, 4 figures, and 2 tables. To appear in the Proceedings of the 35th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '26)
Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.25245 [cs.IR]
(or arXiv:2608.25245v1 [cs.IR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.25245 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.1145/3799682.3840922 DOI(s) linking to related resources
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 265 words
Related coverage

Presentation: From Models to Agents: Building Context-Aware Consumer AI at Scale at DoorDash
InfoQ · Aug 15, 2026

Does distilling Claude carry the persona with it?
LessWrong · Jul 24, 2026

The Alignment Problem: Computer Science Meets Analytic Philosophy
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 18, 2026

The knowledge layer for enterprise AI: Operating structure
Neo4j · Aug 28, 2026