Evaluates academic search and recommendation systems in live production environments using A/B testing and user interaction logs, bridging the gap between offline test collections and real-world performance. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LIVIVO, GESIS Search, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports click-paths.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Stella Living Lab Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-stella-living-lab-eval)
---
name: stella-living-lab-eval
description: Evaluates academic search and recommendation systems in live production environments using A/B testing and user interaction logs, bridging the gap between offline test collections and real-world performance. Use when the user wants to benchmark on LIVIVO, GESIS Search, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports click-paths.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2310.20387
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: medium
---
# stella-living-lab-eval
> Overview of LiLAS 2020 -- Living Labs for Academic Search — Philipp Schaer, Johann Schaible, Leyla Jael Garcia Castro (2023) (arXiv:2310.20387, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates academic search and recommendation systems in live production environments using A/B testing and user interaction logs, bridging the gap between offline test collections and real-world performance.
## Datasets
- **LIVIVO** — total 25000000; splits: test (-1)
- **GESIS Search** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `click-paths` **(primary)** — range: count / percent
- Implicit feedback metric tracking user click sequences on retrieved documents during live A/B testing. Used to infer relevance and system preference.
## Input / output format
**Input**: User search queries routed through STELLA's API to Dockerized experimental retrieval systems.
**Output**: Ranked result sets from experimental vs. production systems, mixed via A/B testing or interleaving for live user interaction.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def evaluate_ab_test(experimental_results, production_results, user_interactions):
# Route users to experimental or production system via A/B split
# Log click-paths and interaction events per query
# Aggregate click counts and dwell times
# Compare usage levels between experimental and production
return aggregate_interaction_stats
```
## Common pitfalls
- Metrics rely on implicit user feedback (clicks) rather than explicit relevance judgments, introducing potential bias.
- Evaluation requires live production traffic and Docker-based deployment; cannot be replicated offline with static logs.
- Results are highly dependent on the specific domain (Life Sciences vs. Social Sciences) and user demographics of the host platforms.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> While this is still work in progress, the GESIS Search data and possible relevance indicators, such as click-paths, can be obtained.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{schaer2023overview,
title={Overview of LiLAS 2020 -- Living Labs for Academic Search},
author={Philipp Schaer, Johann Schaible, Leyla Jael Garcia Castro (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2310.20387}
}
```
- arXiv: 2310.20387