PreprintCited by 2Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorRecommender Systems and TechniquesTopic Modeling

Large Language Models vs. Search Engines: Evaluating User Preferences Across Varied Information Retrieval Scenarios

Open access
Caramancion, Kevin Matthe·2024·arXiv

Abstract

This study embarked on a comprehensive exploration of user preferences between Search Engines and Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of various information retrieval scenarios. Conducted with a sample size of 100 internet users (N=100) from across the United States, the research delved into 20 distinct use cases ranging from factual searches, such as looking up COVID-19 guidelines, to more subjective tasks, like seeking interpretations of complex concepts in layman's terms. Participants were asked to state their preference between using a traditional search engine or an LLM for each scenario. This approach allowed for a nuanced understanding of how users perceive and utilize these two predominant digital tools in differing contexts. The use cases were carefully selected to cover a broad spectrum of typical online queries, thus ensuring a comprehensive analysis of user preferences. The findings reveal intriguing patterns in user choices, highlighting a clear tendency for participants to favor search engines for direct, fact-based queries, while LLMs were more often preferred for tasks requiring nuanced understanding and language processing. These results offer valuable insights into the current state of digital information retrieval and pave the way for future innovations in this field. This study not only sheds light on the specific contexts in which each tool is favored but also hints at the potential for developing hybrid models that leverage the strengths of both search engines and LLMs. The insights gained from this research are pivotal for developers, researchers, and policymakers in understanding the evolving landscape of digital information retrieval and user interaction with these technologies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2401.05761

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLM-CB queries can replace search engines for information retrieval.

    “LLM-CB queries can replace search engines for information retrieval137.”

    From A scoping review on the mental health harms of LLM-based chatbots (2026) · cites this paper as [137]

    Discussion 4 says LLMs can handle some complex information queries, and the Conclusion says users favor them for natural-language and personalized responses. But the Conclusion also says search engines remain the go-to resource for quick factual information and proposes combining the two tools. The paper therefore supports LLMs as an alternative for some queries, not the unqualified claim that they can replace search engines for information retrieval. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Van den Bosch, A., Bogers, T., & De Kunder, M. (2016). Estimating search engine index size variability: a 9-year longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 107(2), 839-856.
  2. Kelleher, J. D. (2019). Deep learning. MIT press.
  3. Caramancion, K. M. (2020, March). An exploration of disinformation as a cybersecurity threat. In 2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT) (pp. 440-444). IEEE.
  4. Caramancion, K. M. (2023). News Verifiers Showdown: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Bing AI, and Bard in News Fact-Checking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17176. · arXiv
  5. Grechanik, M., Fu, C., Xie, Q., McMillan, C., Poshyvanyk, D., & Cumby, C. (2010, May). A search engine for finding highly relevant applications. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1 (pp. 475-484).
  6. Gaou, S., Bekkari, A., El Mabrouk, M., & Zouhair, A. (2017, March). Search Engine Optimization to detect user's intent. In Proceedings of the 2nd international Conference on Big Data, Cloud and Applications (pp. 1-6).
  7. Sharma, D., Shukla, R., Giri, A. K., & Kumar, S. (2019, January). A brief review on search engine optimization. In 2019 9th international conference on cloud computing, data science & engineering (confluence) (pp. 687-692). IEEE.
  8. Caramancion, K. M. (2023, June). Harnessing the Power of ChatGPT to Decimate Mis/Disinformation: Using ChatGPT for Fake News Detection. In 2023 IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT) (pp. 0042- 0046). IEEE.
  9. Caramancion, K. M. (2022, October). Preference of Device on Social Media Browsing as a Predictor of Deception: The Link Between UX and Mis/Disinformation Vulnerability. In 2022 IEEE 13th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON) (pp. 0583-0588). IEEE
  10. Caramancion, K. M. (2022, June). Same Form, Different Payloads: A Comparative Vector Assessment of DDoS and Disinformation Attacks. In 2022 IEEE International IOT, Electronics and Mechatronics Conference (IEMTRONICS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caramancion, K. M.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Stout (US)
Corresponding author
Caramancion, Kevin Matthe
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390833387
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
large language models, search engines, user preferences, information retrieval, hybrid model, COVID-19 guidelines, online information seeking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review