Custom Model Fine-tuning in AI Search Engines

Custom model fine-tuning in AI search engines refers to the process of adapting pre-trained large language models (LLMs) or foundation models to specific search-related tasks, such as query understanding, relevance ranking, or personalized result generation, by retraining on domain-specific datasets ¹². Its primary purpose is to enhance model performance on niche search scenarios—like enterprise knowledge retrieval or semantic search—where general models fall short, achieving higher accuracy and efficiency without full retraining ³⁴. This technique matters profoundly in AI search engines, as it enables tailored experiences, reduces hallucinations in results, and supports scalable customization amid growing demands for precise, context-aware information retrieval in applications like internal search tools or specialized engines ⁵⁶.

Overview

The emergence of custom model fine-tuning in AI search engines stems from the limitations of generic pre-trained models when applied to specialized search contexts. While foundation models like BERT and GPT variants demonstrated remarkable capabilities on broad language tasks, they often struggled with domain-specific terminology, organizational knowledge bases, and nuanced search intents that characterize real-world enterprise and specialized search applications ³. The fundamental challenge this practice addresses is the gap between general-purpose language understanding and the precise, context-aware retrieval required for effective search experiences—particularly in scenarios involving technical jargon, proprietary information, or highly specific user needs ⁴.

The practice has evolved significantly alongside advances in transfer learning and parameter-efficient methods. Early approaches required full model retraining, which was computationally prohibitive and risked catastrophic forgetting of the base model’s capabilities ⁶. Modern techniques like Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) and other parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods now enable practitioners to update less than 1% of model parameters while achieving substantial performance gains ². This evolution has democratized custom search engine development, allowing organizations to create specialized search experiences without the massive computational resources previously required. The integration with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architectures has further expanded fine-tuning’s role, enabling hybrid systems that combine tuned embedders with dynamic knowledge retrieval ⁷.

Key Concepts

Supervised Fine-tuning (SFT)

Supervised fine-tuning is a transfer learning technique where labeled input-output pairs teach a pre-trained model desired behaviors specific to search tasks ¹⁴. This approach uses gradient descent optimization to adjust model parameters based on explicit examples of correct query-document matching, relevance scoring, or answer generation.

Example: A legal research platform fine-tunes a base LLM using 5,000 labeled pairs of legal queries and relevant case citations. Each training example consists of a query like “precedents for breach of fiduciary duty in Delaware corporations” paired with the specific case law documents that expert legal researchers identified as most relevant. After fine-tuning with a learning rate of 2e-5 over 5 epochs, the model learns to prioritize jurisdiction-specific terminology and legal citation patterns, improving precision@10 from 0.42 to 0.67 on held-out test queries.

Parameter-Efficient Fine-tuning (PEFT)

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning encompasses techniques like LoRA and adapters that update only a small subset of model parameters, typically less than 1% of the total, while keeping the base model frozen ². This approach dramatically reduces computational costs and memory requirements while maintaining performance comparable to full fine-tuning.

Example: An e-commerce company implements LoRA adapters to customize a 7-billion parameter model for product search. Instead of updating all 7 billion parameters, they insert low-rank matrices into the transformer layers, creating only 8 million trainable parameters. Training on 50,000 product query-listing pairs completes in 3 hours on a single A100 GPU rather than the 48 hours required for full fine-tuning, reducing cloud compute costs from $2,400 to $150 while achieving a 23% improvement in product match accuracy.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF)

RLHF uses preference signals from human evaluators to align model outputs with search quality metrics like relevance, diversity, and user satisfaction ¹⁴. Rather than relying solely on labeled examples, this approach trains a reward model based on human preferences and uses reinforcement learning to optimize the search model’s behavior.

Example: A medical information search engine collects preference data by showing clinicians pairs of search results for 2,000 medical queries and asking which result set better balances comprehensiveness with clinical relevance. The system trains a reward model on these preferences, then uses proximal policy optimization (PPO) to fine-tune the search ranker. The resulting model learns nuanced trade-offs, such as prioritizing peer-reviewed studies over general medical information for diagnostic queries while favoring patient-friendly explanations for treatment option searches.

Catastrophic Forgetting

Catastrophic forgetting occurs when fine-tuning on domain-specific data causes a model to lose its general capabilities and knowledge from pre-training ⁶. This phenomenon is particularly problematic in search engines that must handle both specialized and general queries.

Example: A financial services firm fine-tunes a model on 10,000 examples of investment terminology and portfolio analysis queries. After aggressive fine-tuning with a high learning rate (5e-4) for 20 epochs, the model excels at financial queries but begins failing on basic general knowledge questions that users occasionally ask, such as “what time does the market close in Tokyo?” The model’s accuracy on general queries drops from 89% to 61%, requiring the team to implement elastic weight consolidation to preserve general capabilities while specializing for finance.

Query-Document Matching

Query-document matching is the core search task of determining semantic similarity and relevance between user queries and candidate documents in the search corpus ²³. Fine-tuning optimizes embedding spaces to better capture domain-specific notions of relevance.

Example: An internal HR knowledge base fine-tunes a bi-encoder model on 3,000 employee queries paired with relevant policy documents. The training data includes examples like the query “parental leave for adoptive parents” matched with the specific policy section covering adoption benefits, even though the exact phrase doesn’t appear in the document. After fine-tuning, the model learns that “adoptive parents” and “adoption benefits” are semantically equivalent in this context, improving retrieval recall from 0.54 to 0.78 for paraphrased policy queries.

Evaluation Metrics for Search

Search-specific evaluation metrics like Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG), Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR), and precision@k quantify ranking quality and guide fine-tuning optimization ⁴. These metrics account for position bias and graded relevance judgments.

Example: A technical documentation search system evaluates fine-tuning progress using NDCG@10 and MRR on a test set of 500 developer queries. Before fine-tuning, the baseline model achieves NDCG@10 of 0.58 and MRR of 0.42. After fine-tuning on 2,000 query-document pairs with relevance grades (0-3 scale), the metrics improve to NDCG@10 of 0.74 and MRR of 0.61. The team also tracks precision@3 specifically, as user analytics show 85% of developers only examine the top three results, finding it improved from 0.51 to 0.69.

Domain-Specific Embeddings

Domain-specific embeddings are vector representations of queries and documents that capture specialized semantic relationships and terminology unique to a particular field or organization ³⁷. Fine-tuning creates embedding spaces where domain-relevant concepts cluster appropriately.

Example: A pharmaceutical research search engine fine-tunes a sentence transformer model on 15,000 pairs of drug compound queries and research abstracts. The base model initially treats “ACE inhibitor” and “angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor” as moderately related (cosine similarity 0.62) but places them far from “hypertension treatment” (similarity 0.31). After fine-tuning on domain literature, the model learns these pharmaceutical relationships, increasing the similarity between ACE inhibitors and hypertension treatment to 0.81, while also learning to distinguish between different drug classes that the general model conflated.

Applications in Search Engine Contexts

Enterprise Knowledge Retrieval

Custom model fine-tuning transforms generic search capabilities into specialized enterprise knowledge retrieval systems that understand organizational terminology, internal processes, and proprietary information ³. Companies like Glean implement fine-tuning on internal documents to create search experiences that outperform off-the-shelf models by internalizing company-specific language and information hierarchies. For instance, a multinational technology company fine-tunes a search model on 50,000 internal wiki pages, support tickets, and engineering documents, enabling employees to find relevant information using internal acronyms and project codenames that would be meaningless to a general model. The fine-tuned system achieves 34% higher user satisfaction scores and reduces average search time from 8.3 minutes to 3.1 minutes per query.

Semantic Search Enhancement

Fine-tuning enables semantic search systems to move beyond keyword matching to true intent understanding in specialized domains ⁴⁷. Nebius demonstrates this by fine-tuning LLMs on HR policy documents for employee query bots, allowing the system to understand that a question like “Can I work remotely from another state?” relates to policies about geographic work restrictions, tax implications, and remote work eligibility—even when these exact terms don’t appear in the query. A healthcare provider implements similar fine-tuning for patient-facing symptom search, training on 10,000 patient-doctor conversation transcripts to understand how laypeople describe medical conditions, enabling the system to map colloquial descriptions like “my chest feels tight and I can’t catch my breath” to medically relevant information about dyspnea and cardiac symptoms.

E-commerce Product Discovery

Google’s Vertex AI enables e-commerce platforms to fine-tune Gemini models for custom search agents that improve product matching and discovery ². An online fashion retailer fine-tunes a multimodal model on 100,000 product queries paired with successful purchase outcomes, teaching the system to understand style descriptors like “cottagecore aesthetic” or “minimalist Scandinavian design” and match them to appropriate products. The fine-tuned model learns to weigh visual attributes, material descriptions, and style tags appropriately, increasing conversion rates from search by 18% and reducing zero-result queries by 41%. The system also learns seasonal patterns, understanding that “summer dress” in December likely refers to vacation wear rather than immediate needs.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Optimization

Fine-tuning enhances RAG architectures by improving both the retrieval and generation components for more accurate, grounded search responses ⁷. A financial advisory platform implements fine-tuned embedders in their RAG pipeline to retrieve relevant regulatory documents and market analysis, then uses a fine-tuned generator to synthesize answers with proper citations. Training on 5,000 examples of financial queries with expert-written responses that cite specific sources, the system learns to ground its answers in retrieved documents while maintaining readability. This reduces hallucination rates from 12% to 3% and increases user trust scores by 28%, as responses consistently include verifiable citations to authoritative sources.

Best Practices

Start with High-Quality, Representative Data

The foundation of successful fine-tuning lies in curating 200-500 high-quality, representative examples that capture the diversity of search scenarios the model will encounter ¹⁶. Quality trumps quantity in the initial stages, as clean, well-labeled data prevents the model from learning spurious patterns. The rationale is that fine-tuning amplifies patterns in the training data—both good and bad—so starting with carefully curated examples ensures the model learns desired behaviors.

Implementation: A legal tech startup building a contract search engine begins by having three senior attorneys collaboratively label 300 query-document pairs, ensuring inter-annotator agreement above 0.85 Cohen’s kappa. They stratify examples across contract types (employment, vendor, real estate), query intents (find clause, compare terms, identify risks), and difficulty levels. Each example includes the query, relevant document sections, and a relevance score (0-3). They format data consistently as JSONL:

{"query": "non-compete duration limits in California", "document": "Section 4.2: Non-Compete Provisions...", "relevance": 3}

This careful curation enables their initial fine-tuning run to achieve 0.71 NDCG@5, compared to 0.52 for a model trained on 2,000 hastily labeled examples.

Implement Iterative Evaluation with Domain Metrics

Continuous evaluation using search-specific metrics throughout the fine-tuning process enables early detection of overfitting and guides hyperparameter adjustments ²⁴. Rather than relying solely on training loss, practitioners should monitor held-out performance on metrics like precision@k, NDCG, and MRR that directly reflect search quality. This approach prevents wasted compute on poorly configured training runs and ensures the model optimizes for actual search performance.

Implementation: A technical documentation search team establishes a validation set of 200 queries with graded relevance judgments, evaluating their model every 100 training steps. They track five metrics: NDCG@10, MRR, precision@3, recall@10, and query latency. When they notice NDCG plateauing at 0.68 after epoch 4 while training loss continues decreasing, they recognize overfitting and implement early stopping. They also discover that increasing batch size from 16 to 32 improves training stability without hurting performance, reducing total training time by 30%. Their evaluation dashboard alerts them when validation metrics diverge from training metrics by more than 15%, triggering hyperparameter review.

Use Parameter-Efficient Methods to Reduce Costs

Adopting PEFT techniques like LoRA reduces computational costs by up to 90% while maintaining performance comparable to full fine-tuning ²⁴. This approach makes custom search engine development accessible to organizations with limited GPU resources and enables faster iteration cycles. The rationale is that most task-specific knowledge can be captured in low-rank updates to specific model layers, making full parameter updates unnecessary.

Implementation: A mid-sized SaaS company with limited ML infrastructure uses Hugging Face’s PEFT library to implement LoRA adapters for their customer support search system. They configure rank-8 adapters on the query and value projection matrices of their 3-billion parameter base model, creating only 4.7 million trainable parameters. Training completes in 2.5 hours on a single NVIDIA T4 GPU (available in their existing cloud allocation) rather than requiring expensive A100 instances. The LoRA-tuned model achieves 0.73 F1 score on support ticket routing, compared to 0.75 for full fine-tuning, making the 2.7% performance trade-off worthwhile given the 12x cost reduction and ability to maintain multiple specialized adapters for different product lines.

Monitor for Distribution Drift and Retrain Regularly

Search patterns and information needs evolve over time, requiring periodic retraining to maintain performance ³⁵. Implementing monitoring systems that detect when query distributions or relevance patterns shift enables proactive model updates before user experience degrades. This practice ensures the search engine remains effective as language, terminology, and user needs change.

Implementation: An e-commerce search platform implements quarterly drift monitoring by comparing current query embeddings to the distribution from their training data using Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD). When MMD exceeds 0.15, indicating significant distribution shift, they trigger a retraining workflow. After launching a new product category (smart home devices), their monitoring detects a 0.21 MMD score as users adopt new terminology like “Matter protocol compatible” and “Thread border router.” They collect 1,200 new query-product pairs from the past quarter’s search logs, combine them with 800 examples from the original training set to prevent forgetting, and retrain. This restores NDCG@10 from 0.64 (degraded) to 0.76, recovering the performance drop caused by vocabulary drift.

Implementation Considerations

Tool and Platform Selection

Choosing appropriate tools and platforms significantly impacts development velocity and operational costs for custom search engine fine-tuning ²⁶. Organizations must balance between managed services like Google’s Vertex AI, which offer streamlined workflows but less flexibility, and open-source frameworks like Hugging Face Transformers, which provide greater control but require more infrastructure management. Vertex AI provides managed pipelines with automatic hyperparameter tuning and deployment endpoints, making it ideal for teams prioritizing speed to production. For example, a healthcare startup uses Vertex AI to fine-tune Gemini models for medical literature search, leveraging built-in experiment tracking and one-click deployment to production endpoints, reducing their time-to-market from 6 weeks to 10 days. Conversely, a large tech company with existing ML infrastructure uses Hugging Face Transformers with Ray Tune for distributed hyperparameter optimization, gaining fine-grained control over training dynamics and the ability to implement custom loss functions for their specialized ranking objectives.

Data Format and Quality Standards

Establishing consistent data formats and quality standards prevents training instabilities and ensures reproducible results ¹⁶. Search-specific fine-tuning typically uses JSONL format with fields for queries, documents, and relevance scores, but the specific schema should match the task. For ranking tasks, data should include query-document pairs with graded relevance (0-3 scale), while generative search tasks need query-response pairs with optional citations. A financial services search team standardizes on a schema that includes query text, document ID, relevance grade, query intent category, and timestamp, enabling them to filter training data by recency and intent distribution. They implement automated quality checks that flag examples with suspiciously short documents (under 50 tokens), duplicate queries, or relevance scores that contradict user engagement signals (high relevance but zero clicks), maintaining a clean training corpus of 15,000 examples from an initial noisy collection of 23,000.

Audience-Specific Customization

Different user audiences require different fine-tuning strategies based on their expertise levels, search patterns, and information needs ³⁴. Expert users in technical domains benefit from models fine-tuned to understand specialized jargon and complex queries, while general audiences need models that handle natural language variations and ambiguous intents. A medical information platform maintains two separately fine-tuned models: one for healthcare professionals trained on clinical terminology and research literature (8,000 examples from PubMed queries), and another for patients trained on consumer health questions and patient-friendly resources (12,000 examples from patient forums). The clinician model learns to prioritize systematic reviews and clinical guidelines for queries like “first-line treatment resistant hypertension,” while the patient model emphasizes accessible explanations and practical guidance for queries like “what should I do if my blood pressure medicine isn’t working?” This dual-model approach increases satisfaction scores by 31% for clinicians and 27% for patients compared to a single general model.

Organizational Maturity and Resource Constraints

Implementation approaches should align with organizational ML maturity and available resources ⁵⁷. Organizations new to ML should start with managed services and pre-built solutions, while mature ML teams can leverage custom architectures and advanced techniques. A small legal startup with no ML engineers uses Hugging Face AutoTrain, a no-code fine-tuning service, to customize a search model for case law retrieval by simply uploading 500 labeled query-document pairs and selecting a base model. The service automatically handles hyperparameter tuning, training, and model export, enabling them to deploy a custom search engine in three days. In contrast, a large enterprise with a dedicated ML team implements a sophisticated multi-stage fine-tuning pipeline: they first fine-tune on 50,000 general domain examples, then perform sequential fine-tuning on 10,000 organization-specific examples, and finally apply RLHF using preference data from 200 expert users. They use DeepSpeed for distributed training across 16 GPUs and implement custom evaluation harnesses that test for bias, fairness, and edge cases specific to their compliance requirements.

Common Challenges and Solutions

Challenge: Data Scarcity and Labeling Costs

Many organizations lack sufficient labeled query-document pairs for effective fine-tuning, particularly in specialized domains where expert labeling is expensive and time-consuming ²⁴. A biotech company estimates that having domain experts label 5,000 query-document pairs for their research literature search would cost $45,000 and take three months, creating a significant barrier to implementation. Small datasets also risk overfitting, where the model memorizes training examples rather than learning generalizable patterns.

Solution:

Implement synthetic data generation using larger general-purpose models to augment limited labeled data, combined with active learning to prioritize high-value labeling efforts ¹². The biotech company uses GPT-4 to generate 3,000 synthetic query-document pairs by prompting it with examples of their domain and asking it to create realistic research queries with relevant paper abstracts. They validate a random sample of 200 synthetic examples, finding 78% are usable with minor edits. They combine these synthetic examples with 800 expert-labeled pairs and implement active learning: after initial fine-tuning, the model identifies queries where it’s most uncertain, and experts label just those 400 high-impact examples. This hybrid approach achieves 0.69 NDCG@10, compared to 0.71 for a fully expert-labeled dataset of 5,000 examples, at 15% of the cost and in one-third the time.

Challenge: Overfitting on Small Datasets

Fine-tuning on limited search data often leads to overfitting, where models perform well on training queries but fail to generalize to new search patterns ⁴⁶. An internal HR search system fine-tuned on 300 employee queries achieves 0.89 accuracy on the training set but only 0.52 on held-out queries, indicating severe overfitting. The model memorizes specific query phrasings rather than learning underlying semantic patterns.

Solution:

Employ regularization techniques including early stopping, dropout, and validation-based checkpointing, combined with data augmentation through query paraphrasing ²⁴. The HR team implements several safeguards: they split their 300 examples into 240 training and 60 validation queries, implement dropout with probability 0.1 in the fine-tuning layers, and use early stopping that halts training when validation NDCG doesn’t improve for 3 consecutive epochs. They also augment their training data by using a paraphrasing model to generate 2-3 variations of each query (e.g., “maternity leave policy” becomes “pregnancy leave rules” and “parental leave for mothers”), tripling their effective dataset size. These techniques reduce the train-validation performance gap from 37 percentage points to 8 percentage points, with validation accuracy improving to 0.71.

Challenge: Catastrophic Forgetting of General Capabilities

Aggressive fine-tuning on domain-specific search data can cause models to lose their general language understanding and reasoning capabilities ⁶. A legal search engine fine-tuned intensively on case law begins failing on basic queries that require general knowledge, such as “what year was the ADA passed?” or “define jurisdiction,” which it previously handled correctly. Users report frustration when the specialized system can’t answer straightforward questions.

Solution:

Implement elastic weight consolidation (EWC) or mix general examples into the fine-tuning dataset to preserve base capabilities while specializing ⁶. The legal search team adopts a mixed training approach: they combine their 5,000 domain-specific legal query-document pairs with 1,000 general knowledge query-answer pairs sampled from the model’s original training distribution. They weight the loss function to prioritize legal examples (weight 0.7) while maintaining general capabilities (weight 0.3). Additionally, they reduce the learning rate from 5e-4 to 2e-5 and decrease training epochs from 20 to 8, making updates more conservative. This balanced approach maintains 94% of the model’s general question-answering accuracy (down from 97% baseline) while achieving 89% accuracy on specialized legal queries, compared to the previous aggressive fine-tuning that achieved 92% legal accuracy but only 61% general accuracy.

Challenge: High Computational Costs and Long Training Times

Full fine-tuning of large language models requires expensive GPU resources and lengthy training times that strain budgets and slow iteration cycles ²⁴. A mid-sized company estimates that fine-tuning a 13-billion parameter model for their product search engine would cost $3,200 per training run on cloud GPUs and take 36 hours, making experimentation with different hyperparameters prohibitively expensive. With limited ML budgets, they can only afford 2-3 training runs, reducing their ability to optimize performance.

Solution:

Adopt parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods like LoRA or adapters that reduce trainable parameters by 99% while maintaining comparable performance ². The company implements LoRA with rank-16 adapters, reducing trainable parameters from 13 billion to 18 million. Training time drops from 36 hours to 4.5 hours, and cost decreases from $3,200 to $280 per run. This 91% cost reduction enables them to run 15 experiments exploring different learning rates, batch sizes, and data mixtures within their original budget. They discover that rank-8 adapters perform nearly as well as rank-16 (0.74 vs 0.76 NDCG@10) while training in just 2.5 hours, further accelerating their iteration cycle. The team also uses gradient checkpointing to reduce memory requirements, allowing them to use less expensive GPU instances.

Challenge: Handling Long Queries and Documents

Search applications often involve queries or documents that exceed the token limits of transformer models, typically 512-2048 tokens ⁴. A legal contract search system encounters contracts that are 50,000+ tokens long, far exceeding their model’s 2048-token limit. Naive truncation loses critical information, causing the model to miss relevant clauses that appear later in documents.

Solution:

Implement hierarchical processing strategies, sliding window approaches, or specialized long-context models, combined with intelligent chunking that preserves semantic coherence ⁷. The legal search team adopts a hierarchical approach: they chunk contracts into semantically coherent sections (identified by heading structure) of 1500 tokens with 200-token overlaps, embed each chunk separately, and use a two-stage retrieval process. First-stage retrieval identifies the top 10 relevant chunks using fine-tuned embeddings, then second-stage reranking uses a cross-encoder fine-tuned on query-chunk pairs to select the top 3 most relevant sections. They fine-tune both the embedding model (3,000 query-chunk pairs) and reranker (1,500 query-chunk pairs with graded relevance). This approach achieves 0.81 recall@10 for finding relevant contract clauses, compared to 0.54 for simple truncation and 0.68 for random chunking without semantic boundaries.

See Also

• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in AI Search
• Semantic Search and Vector Embeddings
• Transfer Learning for Information Retrieval

References

1. GitHub. (2024). Customizing and fine-tuning LLMs: What you need to know. https://github.blog/ai-and-ml/llms/customizing-and-fine-tuning-llms-what-you-need-to-know/
2. Google Cloud. (2025). Tune models – Vertex AI. https://docs.cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/generative-ai/docs/models/tune-models
3. Glean. (2024). Fine-tuning – AI Glossary. https://www.glean.com/ai-glossary/fine-tuning
4. Nebius. (2024). AI Model Fine-Tuning: Why It Matters. https://nebius.com/blog/posts/ai-model-fine-tuning-why-it-matters
5. AIM Consulting. (2024). Guide to Fine-Tuning LLMs: Definition, Benefits, and How To. https://aimconsulting.com/insights/guide-to-fine-tuning-llms-definition-benefits-and-how-to/
6. AI21 Labs. (2024). Fine-tuning – Foundational LLM Glossary. https://www.ai21.com/glossary/foundational-llm/fine-tuning/
7. Bright Data. (2024). Fine-tuning AI Models. https://brightdata.com/blog/ai/fine-tuning
8. IBM. (2024). Fine-tuning. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/fine-tuning