The "Curse of Knowledge" in LLM Query Simulation: Concept Provenance for Tracing Answer-Side Intrusion
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.
Builds on
13 of 48 references.
References · 13
- 2019Passage Re-ranking with BERTcited by 645
- 2025Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judgecited by 125
- 2024From Matching to Generation: A Survey on Generative Information Retrievalcited by 89
- 2023Neural Retrievers are Biased Towards LLM-Generated Contentcited by 38
- 2024USimAgent: Large Language Models for Simulating Search Userscited by 32
- 2023User Simulation for Evaluating Information Access Systemscited by 31
- 2024BASES: Large-scale Web Search User Simulation with Large Language Model based Agentscited by 25
- 2024Synthetic Test Collections for Retrieval Evaluationcited by 19
- 2025Can Generative LLMs Create Query Variants for Test Collections? An Exploratory Studycited by 10
- 2025Temporal-Aware User Behaviour Simulation with Large Language Models for Recommender Systemscited by 7
- 2026Validating Search Query Simulations: A Taxonomy of Measurescited by 2
- 2026Verifiable User Simulation for Search and Recommendation Systemscited by 2
1 more
- 2025Demographically-Inspired Query Variants Using an LLMcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.