Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 76 references

Conversational Search: From Fundamentals to Frontiers in the LLM Era

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A tutorial proposes the first systematic bridge between classic conversational search and the LLM era.

desk verdict A competent, well-organized tutorial proposal whose claimed gap in coverage is plausible but unverified; worth peer review as an educational contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10635 v1 pith:RIFVZKIP submitted 2025-06-12 cs.IR cs.CL

Fengran Mo , Chuan Meng , Mohammad Aliannejadi , Jian-Yun Nie This is my paper
classification cs.IRcs.CL
keywords conversationalsearchinformationretrievallargelanguagemodelsretrieval-augmentedgenerationmixed-initiativeinteractionqueryrewritingdenseagentic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is a tutorial proposal for SIGIR 2025 that argues conversational search has reached a turning point: the pre-LLM methods that defined the field still matter, but they are now being reshaped by large language models, and no existing tutorial systematically connects the two for search-oriented systems. It claims the last SIGIR tutorial on conversational search ran in 2022, before the LLM wave, and that related LLM-era tutorials focused on general proactive dialogue rather than search. The tutorial's contribution is to offer that missing bridge in a half-day format: fundamentals (context-dependent queries, datasets, evaluation, query rewriting, conversational dense retrieval, mixed-initiative design) followed by LLM-era frontiers (LLM-generated judgments, generation-augmented retrieval, retrieval-augmented generation, personalization, agentic search). If the bridge holds, participants would leave with a shared map of how conversational search evolved and what the open problems are.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tutorial's two-part curriculum: a 90-minute fundamentals session and a 90-minute LLM-era session. The argument-carrying structure inside is a set of organizing distinctions—query-rewriting-based retrieval versus conversational dense retrieval; what type of initiative to take versus when to take it; generation-augmented retrieval versus retrieval-augmented generation; and human-centered versus LLM-generated evaluation. These distinctions do the work of showing continuity and change across the LLM boundary.

What would settle it

Look through the tutorial programs of major information retrieval and natural language processing conferences from 2023 through mid-2025 for a similarly scoped tutorial that organizes conversational search around large language models; finding one would show the novelty premise is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper aims to establish that there is a coherent narrative running from the earliest conversational search systems to the current LLM-based ones, and that this narrative can be taught as a single curriculum. The central claim is that the field's foundations—context-dependent query understanding, the two retrieval paradigms of query rewriting and conversational dense retrieval, mixed initiatives, and evaluation practice—were set before LLMs, and that LLMs introduce a new layer: automatic relevance judging, generation-augmented retrieval and retrieval-augmented generation, personalization, and agentic search. The paper presents its own tutorial as the first systematic presentation of that connection in the SIGIR community.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the last tutorial on conversational search before this one ran in 2022, before large language models became central, and that no other tutorial already bridges the old and new material for search-focused systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A participant would be able to situate any conversational search paper in one of two retrieval traditions: rewriting the current turn into a self-contained query, or encoding context into the query embedding.
  • Mixed-initiative research is organized into two decisions—what kind of initiative to take and when to take it—so new work can be positioned against that pair of questions.
  • LLM-based evaluation is presented as mature enough to generate relevance judgments and predict query performance, potentially reducing reliance on costly human annotations.
  • The generative turn splits into two directions—generation-augmented retrieval and retrieval-augmented generation—with their collaboration named as the main open problem.
  • Agentic conversational search is the stated frontier, expected to move from answering queries to completing task-level actions through planning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: if the gap claim is accurate, the conversational search community still lacks a settled canon, so the tutorial's organizational scheme could become a reference structure for later surveys and course syllabi.
  • My inference: the rewriting-versus-dense-retrieval distinction may be an artifact of the pre-LLM era, because modern LLMs can perform implicit rewriting inside generation; the more durable split may be between grounding answers in retrieved evidence and generating from parametric memory.
  • My inference: a concrete test of the tutorial's currency would be to map its stated topics against the tasks in the TREC CAsT and iKAT test collections to see whether evaluation practice has caught up with the methods being taught.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This four-page SIGIR 2025 tutorial proposal by Mo et al. argues that conversational search tutorials stopped at SIGIR 2022 and that existing LLM-era tutorials address proactive dialogue rather than search-oriented conversational search systems. The authors propose a half-day tutorial in two parts: fundamentals (datasets and evaluation, query rewriting versus dense retrieval, mixed initiatives) and LLM-era frontiers (automatic evaluation, generation-augmented and retrieval-augmented generation, personalization, and agentic search). The paper makes no empirical claims; its contribution is pedagogical framing and content organization, with public materials to be released before the conference.

Significance. If the gap claim is verified, the tutorial occupies a timely and useful niche for a SIGIR audience, systematically connecting pre-LLM conversational search fundamentals with LLM-era techniques. The content organization is clear, and the placement of datasets and methods (e.g., OR-QuAC, QReCC, CAsT, iKAT, TopiOCQA, QPP, GAR, RAG, nDCG@3, nugget-based evaluation) is largely accurate. The strength of the proposal depends on the novelty claim being supportable; the paper itself discloses reliance on the organizers' own survey [44], which should be clarified with respect to the claimed gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph 4; Section 3] The paper's central motivation is the claim that the latest tutorial on conversational search was SIGIR 2022 [12], 'before the emergence of the LLMs', and that LLM-era tutorials [15, 27] focus on general proactive dialogue systems rather than search-oriented systems. This is a negative existential assertion supported only by 'to the best of our knowledge' and a list of four pre-LLM tutorials. The authors should either report a systematic search of tutorial programs at SIGIR, CIKM, ECIR, WWW, CHIIR, WSDM, and ACL for 2023-2025, or phrase the claim as a time-stamped 'to our knowledge' statement without implying exhaustive exclusion. As written, one comparable LLM-era tutorial would directly weaken the paper's gap-filling rationale.
  2. [Section 5, with Section 1] The tutorial states that some content is partly supported by the organizers' own survey [44], while Section 1 claims that existing books, surveys, and research 'do not systematically introduce the connection between fundamentals and emerging topics' in the LLM era. Since [44] is a broad survey of conversational search by the same group, the paper should clarify what [44] covers and specify how the tutorial's content differs beyond format (e.g., updated 2025 developments, interactive structure, or new LLM-era topics). Without this, the novelty claim is difficult to evaluate and risks appearing to exclude the authors' own related work.
  3. [Section 3] The distinction between [15, 27] as 'general proactive dialogue systems' and the proposed 'search-oriented systems' is asserted rather than operationalized. Please define the criteria (e.g., presence of retrieval, ranking, query rewriting, or search evaluation components) and apply them to [15, 27]; if those tutorials include conversational search content, the phrasing should be adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5] There is a typo: 'oragnizers' should be 'organizers'.
  2. [Section 3 / Reference [65]] The list in Section 3 describes Zhai's tutorial as 'SIGIR 2021', but the reference entry [65] gives the year 2020; please align the year.
  3. [Section 1, paragraph 4] The phrase 'before the emergence of the LLMs' is historically imprecise, since GPT-3 appeared in 2020; consider 'before the widespread adoption of LLMs in search systems' or a similarly qualified phrasing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the tutorial proposal synthesizes prior work; its novelty claim is an asserted gap, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a tutorial proposal, not a derivation or prediction. Its central claim is that it bridges pre-LLM fundamentals and LLM-era conversational search, and that no recent SIGIR tutorial does so. This is a factual/gap assertion supported by citations to [12,15,27] and by 'to the best of our knowledge'; its correctness depends on the completeness of the literature review, not on any circular reduction. Section 5 discloses that some content is 'partly supported by a recent survey written by some of the oragnizers [44]' — a self-citation, but disclosed and used as a supporting resource, not as the justification of a derived result. The many self-citations in the reference list are normal for a tutorial authored by active researchers in the field; the paper fits no parameter and then renames it a prediction, defines no term in terms of the thing it claims to establish, and invokes no self-authored uniqueness theorem. The weakest assumption (that no comparable LLM-era search-oriented tutorial exists) is a verifiable external fact, not a premise that already contains the conclusion. No specific reduction of the kind the rules require can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The tutorial introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. Its load-bearing premises are claims about the prior tutorial landscape (Sections 1 and 3) and a chosen taxonomy of the field's methods (Section 4). These are reasonable background assumptions for a tutorial, but they are asserted rather than proven.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The most recent tutorial on conversational search, Dalton et al. at SIGIR 2022 [12], appeared before the emergence of LLMs.
    Section 1 states that 'the latest tutorial [12] on conversational search was presented at SIGIR 2022, which was before the emergence of the LLMs.' This factual claim about the tutorial landscape underpins the paper's novelty and is asserted without a systematic survey; pre-2022 LLMs such as GPT-3 and T5 make the historical framing contestable.
  • domain assumption No prior tutorial, including [15, 27] on proactive dialogue agents, covers search-oriented conversational systems in the LLM era.
    Section 3 distinguishes this tutorial from [15, 27] by asserting they 'primarily focus on general proactive dialogue systems... rather than on search-oriented systems.' The comparison is asserted, and the completeness of the tutorial inventory is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The fundamental methods of conversational search divide cleanly into query-rewriting-based retrieval and conversational dense retrieval.
    Section 4 Part I structures the entire fundamentals session around this dichotomy, citing [32] and related work. The tutorial's organization depends on this taxonomy being the right way to present the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conversational Search: From Fundamentals to Frontiers in the LLM Era." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIFVZKIP

@misc{pith2026250610635,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conversational Search: From Fundamentals to Frontiers in the LLM Era},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIFVZKIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10635}
}
read the original abstract

Conversational search enables multi-turn interactions between users and systems to fulfill users' complex information needs. During this interaction, the system should understand the users' search intent within the conversational context and then return the relevant information through a flexible, dialogue-based interface. The recent powerful large language models (LLMs) with capacities of instruction following, content generation, and reasoning, attract significant attention and advancements, providing new opportunities and challenges for building up intelligent conversational search systems. This tutorial aims to introduce the connection between fundamentals and the emerging topics revolutionized by LLMs in the context of conversational search. It is designed for students, researchers, and practitioners from both academia and industry. Participants will gain a comprehensive understanding of both the core principles and cutting-edge developments driven by LLMs in conversational search, equipping them with the knowledge needed to contribute to the development of next-generation conversational search systems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Zahra Abbasiantaeb, Chuan Meng, Leif Azzopardi, and Mohammad Aliannejadi

  2. [44]

    Fengran Mo, Kelong Mao, Ziliang Zhao, Hongjin Qian, Haonan Chen, Yiruo Cheng, Xiaoxi Li, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2024. A Survey of Conversational Search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15576(2024)

    arXiv 2024

  3. [12]

    Jeffrey Dalton, Sophie Fischer, Paul Owoicho, Filip Radlinski, Federico Rossetto, Johanne R Trippas, and Hamed Zamani. 2022. Conversational information seek- ing: Theory and application. InSIGIR. 3455–3458

    work page 2022

  4. [1]

    Zahra Abbasiantaeb, Simon Lupart, Leif Azzopardi, Jeffery Dalton, and Moham- mad Aliannejadi. 2025. Conversational Gold: Evaluating Personalized Conversa- tional Search System using Gold Nuggets.SIGIR(2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Vaibhav Adlakha, Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Kaheer Suleman, Harm de Vries, and Siva Reddy. 2022. TopiOCQA: Open-domain Conversational Question Answering with Topic Switching.TACL10 (2022), 468–483

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Mohammad Aliannejadi, Zahra Abbasiantaeb, Shubham Chatterjee, Jeffrey Dal- ton, and Leif Azzopardi. 2024. TREC iKAT 2023: A Test Collection for Evaluating Conversational and Interactive Knowledge Assistants. InSIGIR. 819–829

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Mohammad Aliannejadi, Julia Kiseleva, Aleksandr Chuklin, Jeff Dalton, and Mikhail Burtsev. 2021. Building and Evaluating Open-Domain Dialogue Corpora with Clarifying Questions. InEMNLP. 4473–4484

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Mohammad Aliannejadi and Johanne R Trippas. 2022. Conversational Informa- tion Seeking: Theory and Evaluation: CHIIR 2022 Half Day Tutorial. InCHIIR

    work page 2022

Show all 76 references
  1. [8]

    Bruce Croft

    Mohammad Aliannejadi, Hamed Zamani, Fabio Crestani, and W. Bruce Croft

  2. [9]

    Raviteja Anantha, Svitlana Vakulenko, Zhucheng Tu, Shayne Longpre, Stephen Pulman, and Srinivas Chappidi. 2021. Open-Domain Question Answering Goes Conversational via Question Rewriting. InNAACL. 520–534

    2021

  3. [10]

    Arian Askari, Chuan Meng, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Zhaochun Ren, Evange- los Kanoulas, and Suzan Verberne. 2024. Generative Retrieval with Few-shot Indexing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02152(2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Yiruo Cheng, Kelong Mao, Ziliang Zhao, Guanting Dong, Hongjin Qian, Yongkang Wu, Tetsuya Sakai, Ji-Rong Wen, and Zhicheng Dou. 2024. CORAL: Benchmark- ing Multi-turn Conversational Retrieval-Augmentation Generation. InNAACL. SIGIR ’25, July 13–18, 2025, Padua, Italy Fengran Mo...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Jeffrey Dalton, Chenyan Xiong, and Jamie Callan. 2020. CAsT 2020: The Conver- sational Assistance Track Overview. InTREC 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Jeffrey Dalton, Chenyan Xiong, and Jamie Callan. 2021. TREC CAsT 2021: The Conversational Assistance Track Overview. InTREC 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Yang Deng, Wenqiang Lei, Minlie Huang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. Rethinking Conversational Agents in the Era of LLMs: Proactivity, Non-collaborativity, and Beyond. InSIGIR. 298–301

    2023

  8. [16]

    Yang Deng, Lizi Liao, Wenqiang Lei, Grace Yang, Wai Lam, and Tat-Seng Chua

  9. [17]

    Yang Deng, Lizi Liao, Zhonghua Zheng, Grace Hui Yang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Towards Human-centered Proactive Conversational Agents. InSIGIR. 807–818

    2024

  10. [18]

    Guglielmo Faggioli, Nicola Ferro, Cristina Ioana Muntean, Raffaele Perego, and Nicola Tonellotto. 2023. A Geometric Framework for Query Performance Predic- tion in Conversational Search. InSIGIR. 1355–1365

    2023

  11. [19]

    Jianfeng Gao, Chenyan Xiong, and Paul Bennett. 2020. Recent Advances in Conversational Information Retrieval. InSIGIR. 2421–2424

    2020

  12. [20]

    Proactive Conversational AI: A Comprehensive Survey of Advancements and Opportunities.TOIS(2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Peiyuan Gong, Jiamian Li, and Jiaxin Mao. 2024. CoSearchAgent: A Lightweight Collaborative Search Agent with Large Language Models. InSIGIR. 2729–2733

    2024

  14. [22]

    Dalton Jeffrey, Xiong Chenyan, and Callan Jamie. 2019. CAsT 2019: The Conver- sational Assistance Track Overview. InTREC

    2019

  15. [23]

    Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Dong Wang, Hamed Zamani, and Jiawei Han. 2025. Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09516(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jianfeng Gao, Chenyan Xiong, Paul Bennett, and Nick Craswell. 2022. Neural approaches to conversational information retrieval.arXiv:2201.05176(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kimiya Keyvan and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2022. How to Approach Ambiguous Queries in Conversational Search: A Survey of Techniques, Approaches, Tools, and Challenges.Comput. Surveys55, 6 (2022), 1–40

    2022

  18. [26]

    Xiaoxi Li, Guanting Dong, Jiajie Jin, Yuyao Zhang, Yujia Zhou, Yutao Zhu, Peitian Zhang, and Zhicheng Dou. 2025. Search-o1: Agentic Search-Enhanced Large Reasoning Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05366(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lizi Liao, Grace Hui Yang, and Chirag Shah. 2023. Proactive Conversational Agents in the Post-ChatGPT World. InSIGIR. 3452–3455

    2023

  20. [28]

    Yannis Katsis, Sara Rosenthal, Kshitij Fadnis, Chulaka Gunasekara, Young-Suk Lee, Lucian Popa, Vraj Shah, Huaiyu Zhu, Danish Contractor, and Marina Danilevsky. 2025. MTRAG: A Multi-Turn Conversational Benchmark for Evalu- ating Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems.arXiv:2501...

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Rodrigo Nogueira, Ming-Feng Tsai, Chuan- Ju Wang, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. Multi-stage Conversational Passage Retrieval: An Approach to Fusing Term Importance Estimation and Neural Query Rewriting. TOIS39, 4 (2021), 1–29

    2021

  22. [30]

    Lili Lu, Chuan Meng, Federico Ravenda, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Fabio Crestani. 2025. Zero-Shot and Efficient Clarification Need Prediction in Conver- sational Search. InECIR

    2025

  23. [31]

    Kelong Mao, Zhicheng Dou, Haonan Chen, Fengran Mo, and Hongjin Qian. 2023. Large Language Models Know Your Contextual Search Intent: A Prompting Framework for Conversational Search. InEMNLP

    2023

  24. [32]

    Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. Contextualized Query Embeddings for Conversational Search. InEMNLP. 1004–1015

    2021

  25. [33]

    Kelong Mao, Zhicheng Dou, Hongjin Qian, Fengran Mo, Xiaohua Cheng, and Zhao Cao. 2022. ConvTrans: Transforming Web Search Sessions for Conversa- tional Dense Retrieval. InEMNLP. 2935–2946

    2022

  26. [34]

    Kelong Mao, Hongjin Qian, Fengran Mo, Zhicheng Dou, Bang Liu, Xiaohua Cheng, and Zhao Cao. 2023. Learning Denoised and Interpretable Session Representation for Conversational Search. InWWW. 3193–3202

    2023

  27. [35]

    Chuan Meng. 2024. Query Performance Prediction for Conversational Search and Beyond. InSIGIR. 3077–3077

    2024

  28. [36]

    Kelong Mao, Zhicheng Dou, and Hongjin Qian. 2022. Curriculum Contrastive Context Denoising for Few-shot Conversational Dense Retrieval. InSIGIR

    2022

  29. [37]

    Chuan Meng, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Maarten de Rijke. 2023. System Initiative Prediction for Multi-turn Conversational Information Seeking. InCIKM

    2023

  30. [38]

    Chuan Meng, Negar Arabzadeh, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Maarten De Rijke

  31. [39]

    Chuan Meng, Negar Arabzadeh, Arian Askari, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Maarten de Rijke. 2024. Ranked List Truncation for Large Language Model-based Re-Ranking. InSIGIR. 141–151

    2024

  32. [40]

    Chuan Meng, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Maarten de Rijke. 2023. Performance Prediction for Conversational Search Using Perplexities of Query Rewrites. In QPP++ 2023. 25–28

    2023

  33. [41]

    Chuan Meng, Guglielmo Faggioli, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Nicola Ferro, and Josiane Mothe. 2025. QPP++ 2025: Query Performance Prediction and its Appli- cations in the Era of Large Language Models. InECIR. 319–325

    2025

  34. [42]

    Chuan Meng, Francesco Tonolini, Fengran Mo, Nikolaos Aletras, Emine Yilmaz, and Gabriella Kazai. 2025. Bridging the Gap: From Ad-hoc to Proactive Search in Conversations. InSIGIR

    2025

  35. [43]

    Fengran Mo, Abbas Ghaddar, Kelong Mao, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, Boxing Chen, Qun Liu, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2024. CHIQ: Contextual History Enhancement for Improving Query Rewriting in Conversational Search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05013(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Chuan Meng, Negar Arabzadeh, Arian Askari, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Maarten de Rijke. 2025. Query Performance Prediction using Relevance Judg- ments Generated by Large Language Models.TOIS(2025)

    2025

  37. [46]

    Fengran Mo, Jian-Yun Nie, Kaiyu Huang, Kelong Mao, Yutao Zhu, Peng Li, and Yang Liu. 2023. Learning to Relate to Previous Turns in Conversational Search. InSIGKDD

    2023

  38. [47]

    Fengran Mo, Chen Qu, Kelong Mao, Yihong Wu, Zhan Su, Kaiyu Huang, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2024. Aligning query representation with rewritten query and relevance judgments in conversational search. InCIKM

    2024

  39. [48]

    Fengran Mo, Bole Yi, Kelong Mao, Chen Qu, Kaiyu Huang, and Jian-Yun Nie

  40. [49]

    Fengran Mo, Longxiang Zhao, Kaiyu Huang, Yue Dong, Degen Huang, and Jian- Yun Nie. 2024. How to Leverage Personal Textual Knowledge for Personalized Conversational Information Retrieval. InCIKM

    2024

  41. [50]

    Fengran Mo, Kelong Mao, Yutao Zhu, Yihong Wu, Kaiyu Huang, and Jian-Yun Nie

  42. [51]

    ConvGQR: Generative Query Reformulation for Conversational Search. In ACL. 4998–5012

  43. [52]

    Filip Radlinski, Krisztian Balog, Bill Byrne, and Karthik Krishnamoorthi. 2019. Coached Conversational Preference Elicitation: A Case Study in Understanding Movie Preferences. InSIGDial. 353–360

    2019

  44. [53]

    Filip Radlinski and Nick Craswell. 2017. A Theoretical Framework for Conversa- tional Search. InCHIIR. 117–126

    2017

  45. [54]

    Weihang Su, Yichen Tang, Qingyao Ai, Zhijing Wu, and Yiqun Liu. 2024. DRAGIN: Dynamic Retrieval Augmented Generation based on the Real-time Information Needs of Large Language Models. InACL. 12991–13013

    2024

  46. [55]

    ConvSDG: Session Data Generation for Conversational Search. InWWW

  47. [56]

    Svitlana Vakulenko, Nikos Voskarides, Zhucheng Tu, and Shayne Longpre. 2021. A Comparison of Question Rewriting Methods for Conversational Passage Re- trieval. InECIR. 418–424

    2021

  48. [57]

    Paul Owoicho, Jeff Dalton, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Leif Azzopardi, Johanne R Trippas, and Svitlana Vakulenko. 2022. TREC CAsT 2022: Going Beyond User Ask and System Retrieve with Initiative and Response Generation. InTREC

    2022

  49. [58]

    Chen Qu, Liu Yang, Cen Chen, Minghui Qiu, W Bruce Croft, and Mohit Iyyer

  50. [59]

    Peilin Wu, Xinlu Zhang, Wenhao Yu, Xingyu Liu, Xinya Du, and Zhiyu Zoey Chen. 2025. Do Retrieval-Augmented Language Models Adapt to Varying User Needs?arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19779(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Zeqiu Wu, Yi Luan, Hannah Rashkin, David Reitter, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Mari Ostendorf, and Gaurav Singh Tomar. 2022. CONQRR: Conversational Query Rewriting for Retrieval with Reinforcement Learning. InEMNLP. 10000–10014

    2022

  52. [61]

    Shi Yu, Jiahua Liu, Jingqin Yang, Chenyan Xiong, Paul Bennett, Jianfeng Gao, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2020. Few-shot Generative Conversational Query Rewriting. InSIGIR. 1933–1936

    2020

  53. [62]

    Shi Yu, Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Tao Feng, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2021. Few- Shot Conversational Dense Retrieval. InSIGIR. 829–838

    2021

  54. [63]

    Trippas, Damiano Spina, Paul Thomas, Mark Sanderson, Hideo Joho, and Lawrence Cavedon

    Johanne R. Trippas, Damiano Spina, Paul Thomas, Mark Sanderson, Hideo Joho, and Lawrence Cavedon. 2020. Towards a Model for Spoken Conversational Search.IPM57, 2 (2020), 102162

    2020

  55. [64]

    Hamed Zamani, Johanne R Trippas, Jeff Dalton, Filip Radlinski, et al. 2023. Conver- sational Information Seeking. InFoundations and Trends in Information Retrieval

    2023

  56. [65]

    Nikos Voskarides, Dan Li, Pengjie Ren, Evangelos Kanoulas, and Maarten de Rijke

  57. [66]

    In SIGIR

    Query Resolution for Conversational Search with Limited Supervision. In SIGIR. 921–930

  58. [67]

    2025.Information Access in the Era of Generative AI

    Ryen W White and Chirag Shah. 2025.Information Access in the Era of Generative AI. Springer

    2025

  59. [68]

    Yutao Zhu, Huaying Yuan, Shuting Wang, Jiongnan Liu, Wenhan Liu, Chenlong Deng, Haonan Chen, Zheng Liu, Zhicheng Dou, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Large Language Models for Information Retrieval: A Survey.arXiv:2308.07107(2023)

    2023

  60. [72]

    Dumais, Nick Craswell, Paul N

    Hamed Zamani, Susan T. Dumais, Nick Craswell, Paul N. Bennett, and Gord Lueck. 2020. Generating Clarifying Questions for Information Retrieval. In WWW. 418–428

    2020

  61. [74]

    ChengXiang Zhai. 2020. Interactive Information Retrieval: Models, Algorithms, and Evaluation. InSIGIR. 2444–2447

    2020

  62. [75]

    Erhan Zhang, Xingzhu Wang, Peiyuan Gong, Yankai Lin, and Jiaxin Mao. 2024. USimAgent: Large Language Models for Simulating Search Users. InSIGIR

    2024

  63. [76]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A Survey of Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.182231, 2 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  64. [2019]

    Asking Clarifying Questions in Open-Domain Information-Seeking Con- versations. InSIGIR. 475–484

  65. [2020]

    Open-retrieval Conversational Question Answering. InSIGIR. 539–548

  66. [2023]

    In SIGIR

    Query Performance Prediction: From Ad-hoc to Conversational Search. In SIGIR. 2583–2593

  67. [2024]

    Can We Use Large Language Models to Fill Relevance Judgment Holes?

  68. [2025]

    Improving the Reusability of Conversational Search Test Collections

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.