  Relevance labels, which indicate whether a search result is valuable to a
searcher, are key to evaluating and optimising search systems. The best way to
capture the true preferences of users is to ask them for their careful feedback
on which results would be useful, but this approach does not scale to produce a
large number of labels. Getting relevance labels at scale is usually done with
third-party labellers, who judge on behalf of the user, but there is a risk of
low-quality data if the labeller doesn't understand user needs. To improve
quality, one standard approach is to study real users through interviews, user
studies and direct feedback, find areas where labels are systematically
disagreeing with users, then educate labellers about user needs through judging
guidelines, training and monitoring. This paper introduces an alternate
approach for improving label quality. It takes careful feedback from real
users, which by definition is the highest-quality first-party gold data that
can be derived, and develops an large language model prompt that agrees with
that data.
  We present ideas and observations from deploying language models for
large-scale relevance labelling at Bing, and illustrate with data from TREC. We
have found large language models can be effective, with accuracy as good as
human labellers and similar capability to pick the hardest queries, best runs,
and best groups. Systematic changes to the prompts make a difference in
accuracy, but so too do simple paraphrases. To measure agreement with real
searchers needs high-quality ``gold'' labels, but with these we find that
models produce better labels than third-party workers, for a fraction of the
cost, and these labels let us train notably better rankers.
