# Autoresearch for Marketplace Catalogs: From Legacy Forms to AI-Native Matching

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00274 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00274/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 14 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [TaxoAdapt: Aligning LLM-Based Multidimensional Taxonomy Construction to Evolving Research Corpora](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.10737/) (2025)
- [Building Data-Driven Occupation Taxonomies: A Bottom-Up Multi-Stage Approach via Semantic Clustering and Multi-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.15786/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Two-sided service marketplaces are moving from deterministic request-form intake to AI-native probabilistic matching, enabled by large language models (LLMs) that infer intent, preferences, and latent constraints from natural language. Relying on inferred intent rather than fixed-form fields forces these platforms to regenerate the provider-side preference taxonomy underwriting matching, search, and pricing: attributes interpretable to service providers while remaining a useful signal for marketplace decisions. We present an autoresearch loop that generates this taxonomy, one occupation at a time, and has been deployed in production at a major U.S. consumer services marketplace since April 2026, spanning 132 occupations. Instead of one global hierarchy, the loop treats each occupation as an independent generation problem and runs iterative propose-evaluate-keep refinement cycles. Each candidate tag set is scored by a recalibrated six-rubric LLM-as-judge framework, and a 7-critic panel of distinct personas contributes weighted penalties to an adjusted score, with no hard vetoes. A separate parity-mapping stage maps legacy request-form Q&A pairs back to the generated taxonomy, yielding both a coverage signal and an interface for human quality assurance; it does so by first inferring the provider attribute each legacy question was meant to measure, rather than translating questions to tags literally.