Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 107 references

Adaptive Orchestration of Modular Generative Information Access Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that generative information access systems should reconfigure their processing pipeline per query, and demonstrates the idea with a contextual bandit that beats a static pipeline.

desk verdict The framework and taxonomy are genuinely useful, but the time-aware AQA result contradicts the paper's own reward equation, so the experimental claim should not be trusted as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17454 v1 pith:PSDL45PH submitted 2025-04-24 cs.IR

Mohanna Hoveyda , Harrie Oosterhuis , Arjen P. de Vries , Maarten de Rijke , Faegheh Hasibi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords adaptiveorchestrationgenerativeinformationaccesscontextualbanditgraph-basedquestionansweringefficiency-effectivenesstrade-offmodularsystemsLinUCB
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

This paper argues that generative information access systems should not execute a fixed pipeline for every query; instead, they should adaptively assemble a pipeline of tasks, executors, and information resources on the fly, optimizing for the trade-off between answer quality and cost. It proposes a graph-based framework in which pipeline designs are subgraphs over modules, and construction is framed as planning or reinforcement learning. To show the framework is practicable, the authors instantiate it for question answering: a LinUCB contextual bandit selects among seven pre-computed pipeline graphs using query complexity features, with a reward that balances F1 score against execution time. On a held-out test set, the adaptive system outperforms a static, optimized graph on both F1 and latency, supporting the paper's perspective that per-query adaptive orchestration is feasible and worth developing.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a graph-based representation of pipelines combined with a contextual bandit. Each pipeline is a directed acyclic graph; nodes are task modules (NoR, OneR, IRCoT, Aggregate), executors (Flan-T5-XL as LLM agent, BM25 as retriever, a majority-vote aggregator), and resources (Wikipedia and a multihop passage corpus), and edges encode both the flow of information and the assignment of executors and resources to tasks. The set of seven valid graphs forms the discrete action set of a LinUCB contextual bandit, with the query's complexity label as the context vector and a reward $r_t = \beta P_t - (1-\beta) T_t$ that makes the effectiveness-efficiency trade-off explicit. The static baseline, GPTSwarm, is optimized with REINFORCE on the same module set and converges to one fixed graph, which cannot specialize by query.

What would settle it

Run LinUCB on the same seven graphs but with complexity labels predicted by a lightweight classifier (or with raw query text features only), and compare on the same test set; if per-query selection no longer beats the static GPTSwarm graph on F1 and latency, the paper's evidence for adaptive orchestration over static optimization collapses. Alternatively, collect user-judged complexity labels and show they disagree with the Flan-T5-XL labels, breaking the mapping the bandit learns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the architecture of future generative information access systems will be dynamic and self-organizing: for each user input, the system should decide which tasks to run, which executors (agents or tools) should perform them, and which resources to consult, instead of applying a one-size-fits-all pipeline. The paper formalizes this as a directed acyclic graph whose nodes are module types and whose edges encode ordering and assignment, and it treats pipeline construction as an optimization problem with a composite objective over effectiveness and cost. In the proof-of-concept instantiation, LinUCB learns to map question complexity to one of seven valid graphs: simple questions are routed to direct generation (NoR), harder ones to single-step retrieval (OneR) or interleaved retrieval-chain-of-thought (IRCoT), and an aggregate node merges answers. With F1 and time as rewards, the adaptive system reaches 0.697 F1 at 9.99 ms (time-agnostic) or 0.687 F1 at 8.89 ms (time-based), while the static GPTSwarm-optimized graph reaches 0.502 F1 at 12.78 ms. The authors conclude that adaptive orchestration can construct pipelines adapted to incoming questions and optimized for a stated efficiency-effectiveness trade-off.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstrated gains rely on the bandit receiving the dataset's gold complexity labels (A/B/C) as context, a signal real systems do not have at query time and that was produced by an LLM annotator rather than validated against user needs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same bandit-based selection generalizes to any modular system whose feasible pipeline graphs can be enumerated, making the framework applicable beyond question answering to retrieval, conversational search, and tool-use systems.
  • Adaptive orchestration can incorporate cost beyond latency, such as compute, API fees, and environmental impact, because any such cost can enter the composite reward.
  • Systems that adapt per query can integrate newly added modules over time: a new module only adds nodes and graphs to the action space, while the bandit re-learns their utility.
  • The demonstrated gap between adaptive and static orchestration (F1 0.697 vs 0.502, lower latency) implies that static pipeline optimization leaves substantial accuracy and efficiency on the table when query complexity varies.
  • Scaling to large module sets will require planning or general RL methods rather than exhaustive graph enumeration, as the paper notes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's use of gold complexity labels as context is a favorable condition: in deployment, a complexity predictor trained without such labels would be needed, and the reported advantage over static orchestration may shrink if that predictor is noisy.
  • Because the action space is fixed to seven whole graphs, 'adaptivity' here is strategy selection rather than true on-the-fly construction; a more granular formulation with node-by-node additions could support pipelines that branch based on intermediate retrieval results, which the paper lists as an extension.
  • A direct test of the vision would replace the gold labels with a learned query-complexity classifier, or with bandit features derived purely from the query text, and check whether per-query selection still beats a static graph.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that future generative information access (GenIA) systems should be modular and adaptively orchestrated, constructing a new pipeline graph for each user query. It proposes a graph-based framework whose nodes are tasks, executors, and resources, and suggests planning and reinforcement-learning methods for construction. The framework is instantiated with a LinUCB contextual bandit on a QA task, using seven pre-computed pipeline graphs as arms, complexity labels as context, and a reward combining F1 with a latency penalty. Experiments compare this adaptive QA system (AQA) against GPTSwarm and report that AQA adapts to query complexity and achieves a better effectiveness-efficiency trade-off. The paper's central claim is that the instantiation 'successfully constructs system pipelines that are adapted to the characteristics of incoming questions and optimized for a given efficiency-effectiveness trade-off' (Section 5.4.1).

Significance. The perspective and framework are timely and useful: the module taxonomy and the formulation of pipeline construction as a contextual bandit problem are clear contributions, and the authors provide a public code repository, which strengthens reproducibility. However, the experimental demonstration currently does not support the central claim. The time-included reward specified in Eq. (3) is inconsistent with the reported behavior of AQA(T) for Context C, the context features are gold complexity labels unavailable at query time, the evaluation rests on a single run with no statistical significance testing, and the GPTSwarm baseline optimizes a different objective. These issues are substantial but fixable; the framework contribution is independent of the experimental validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.3 and Table 4 (Eq. 3)] The time-included results are internally inconsistent with the stated reward. For Context C, Table 3 gives OneR F1=0.146, S=6.41 s and IRCoT F1=0.458, S=184.85 s. Substituting into Eq. (3) with β=0.5 gives r(OneR) ≈ 0.5·0.146 − 0.5·(6.41/10000) ≈ 0.0727 and r(IRCoT) ≈ 0.5·0.458 − 0.5·(184.85/50) ≈ −1.62. The optimal arm under Eq. (3) for Context C is therefore OneR, yet Table 4 reports AQA(T) with F1=0.523 and time 11.75 (natural-log ms, ≈126 s), which matches an IRCoT-containing pipeline and is identical to AQA(NT). After roughly 1,167 Context-C samples, LinUCB should easily separate a reward gap of about 1.7. The reported result implies that the reward was implemented differently from Eq. (3), the policy did not converge, or the table is misreported; in any case, the conclusion in §5.4.1 that the time-based model 'successfully' optimizes the efficiency-effectiveness trade-off is not supported by the published data.
  2. [§5.3 (context features)] The contextual features are 'the complexity labels provided in the dataset,' i.e., the gold A/B/C labels described in §5.1, which were generated with Flan-T5-XL. Real systems do not have access to gold complexity labels at query time, so the demonstration of adaptivity presupposes an oracle signal. The paper should either use features computable from the query itself (e.g., text embeddings or a trained complexity classifier) or explicitly frame the results as an oracle-upper-bound proof-of-concept. Section 4.4 acknowledges that 'contextual features may not be sufficiently informative,' but it does not mention that the features used here are gold labels, which is a stronger and more specific concern. This directly affects the transferability of the claim that the system adapts to 'characteristics of incoming questions.'
  3. [§5.4 (experimental protocol)] The experimental evaluation consists of a single run of the LinUCB process for 3,500 timesteps, evaluated on a single test set of 51 questions, with no variance, confidence intervals, or significance testing. The differences in Table 4 (e.g., AQA(NT) vs AQA(T): F1 0.697 vs 0.687, time 9.99 vs 8.89) and the differences versus GPTSwarm could be within run-to-run noise. Because the paper's central conclusion is that AQA 'successfully' adapts and outperforms static orchestration, the authors should report multiple seeds or bootstrapped intervals and, ideally, significance tests for the test-set comparisons.
  4. [§5.4.2 (baseline comparison)] The GPTSwarm baseline is optimized for F1 only, without any time cost (the paper notes that GPTSwarm does not accommodate context or time cost), whereas AQA(T) is optimized for the combined reward of Eq. (3). The higher latency of GPTSwarm is therefore expected and does not by itself demonstrate the value of adaptivity. To support the claim that adaptive orchestration achieves a superior efficiency-effectiveness trade-off over static optimization, the static baseline should be optimized for the same objective (e.g., a static graph optimizer with a time-sensitive reward) or the comparison should be explicitly limited to an F1-only static baseline.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.3.2] Items (2) and (3) in the context-features list are both titled 'User profile features' and contain nearly identical text; they should be merged or renumbered.
  2. [Figure 2] The legend is difficult to read in grayscale, and the color coding of the seven arms is not discernible in print; additionally, the legend label 'NOR' should be 'NoR' to match the text.
  3. [Table 4] The caption should state that the 'Time' column reports natural-log-transformed milliseconds; this information appears only in the text.
  4. [Eq. (3)] The definition of T_t is written with an awkward bracket structure; please rewrite it with explicit cases, e.g., T_t = S_t/10000 if 1 < S_t ≤ 10, and T_t = S_t/50 if S_t > 10.
  5. [References] Several references use '[n. d.]' instead of a year or venue (e.g., [9], [10], [55], [56]); these should be completed for the camera-ready version.
  6. [§5.4.1] The text refers to 'dotted red lines' in Figure 2, but the figure appears to be in color only in the electronic version; please ensure the dashed/dotted lines are also distinguishable in grayscale.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper's AQA instantiation is an empirical bandit experiment, and its central claim rests on held-out evaluation rather than on a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's main contribution is a perspective and framework, with a proof-of-concept instantiation (AQA) that uses LinUCB to select among seven pre-enumerated pipeline graphs. The optimization objective (Eq. 3) combines F1 with a time penalty, and the evaluation reports F1 and time on a held-out test set. This is an empirical comparison, not a derivation from first principles, so there is no self-definitional reduction: the reward is not constructed from the test-set outcomes, and the reported conclusions are about learned behavior on held-out data. The contextual features are the dataset's gold complexity labels ('Our contextual features are the complexity labels provided in the dataset'), which is a data-leakage / external-validity concern, not circularity, because the labels are external annotations and are not derived from the model's own outputs. The paper's self-citations (e.g., refs. 25, 34, 54, 86) appear in background, feature-taxonomy, and feedback-bias discussions; none is load-bearing for the central claim. The skeptical observation that the time-included results in Table 4 appear inconsistent with the reward defined by Eq. 3 is a correctness/consistency issue, not circularity: it does not show that the conclusion was forced by the inputs. Overall, the paper does not fit any of the enumerated circularity patterns, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on a small number of hand-set parameters and domain assumptions: the reward weights and latency thresholds, the availability and validity of dataset complexity labels, the restriction to seven graph configurations, and F1 as a proxy for answer quality. The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; its framework terms (tasks, executors, resources) are descriptive categories.

free parameters (3)
  • beta (reward weight) = 0.5
    Eq. (3); chosen to balance F1 and time cost, with no sensitivity analysis.
  • latency cost thresholds = T_t = S/10000 for 1 < S <= 10; T_t = 1/50 for S > 10; T_t = 0 for S <= 1
    Ad hoc mapping from execution seconds to cost; directly shapes which pipelines are preferred.
  • training/test split = 210 training, 51 test questions
    Randomly selected without a stated seed, so the fixed split is not reproducible from the paper alone.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Flan-T5-XL derived complexity labels (A/B/C) are a valid and query-time-available description of complexity.
    Section 5.3 uses these as CMAB context features; deployed systems would have to infer complexity from raw text, which is nontrivial.
  • domain assumption The seven precomputed graphs of {NoR, OneR, IRCoT, Aggregate} cover the relevant pipeline space for the QA task.
    Section 5.3 restricts the action set to seven valid graphs, so conclusions about orchestration hold only within this curated set.
  • domain assumption F1 and the latency-derived cost T_t together represent the user's utility.
    Eq. (3) combines them with hand-set constants; no user study or calibrated utility model is provided.
  • domain assumption LinUCB's linear model adequately predicts the reward of each graph given complexity labels.
    Section 5.3 invokes LinUCB [42]; linear separability of graph utility per complexity level is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Orchestration of Modular Generative Information Access Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSDL45PH

@misc{pith2026250417454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Orchestration of Modular Generative Information Access Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSDL45PH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17454}
}
read the original abstract

Advancements in large language models (LLMs) have driven the emergence of complex new systems to provide access to information, that we will collectively refer to as modular generative information access (GenIA) systems. They integrate a broad and evolving range of specialized components, including LLMs, retrieval models, and a heterogeneous set of sources and tools. While modularity offers flexibility, it also raises critical challenges: How can we systematically characterize the space of possible modules and their interactions? How can we automate and optimize interactions among these heterogeneous components? And, how do we enable this modular system to dynamically adapt to varying user query requirements and evolving module capabilities? In this perspective paper, we argue that the architecture of future modular generative information access systems will not just assemble powerful components, but enable a self-organizing system through real-time adaptive orchestration -- where components' interactions are dynamically configured for each user input, maximizing information relevance while minimizing computational overhead. We give provisional answers to the questions raised above with a roadmap that depicts the key principles and methods for designing such an adaptive modular system. We identify pressing challenges, and propose avenues for addressing them in the years ahead. This perspective urges the IR community to rethink modular system designs for developing adaptive, self-optimizing, and future-ready architectures that evolve alongside their rapidly advancing underlying technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of a graph that represents a system design for a possible pipeline in our framework. Nodes represent modules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LinUCB expected rewards for the collaborative action space, dashed line depicts real reward for the optimal action. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Leonard Adolphs, Benjamin Börschinger, Christian Buck, Michelle Chen Hueb- scher, Massimiliano Ciaramita, Lasse Espeholt, Thomas Hofmann, Yannic Kilcher, Sascha Rothe, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, and Lierni Sestorain. 2022. Boosting Search Engines with Interactive Agents. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Mohammad Aliannejadi, Julia Kiseleva, Aleksandr Chuklin, Jeff Dalton, and Mikhail Burtsev. 2021. Building and Evaluating Open-Domain Dialogue Corpora with Clarifying Questions. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    2021

  3. [3]

    James Allan, Eunsol Choi, Daniel P Lopresti, and Hamed Zamani. 2024. Future of Information Retrieval Research in the Age of Generative AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02043 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, David Silver, Slav Petrov, Melvin Johnson, Ioannis Antonoglou, Julian Schrit- twieser, Amelia Glaese, Jilin Chen, Emily Pitler, Timothy P

    Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M. Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, David Silver, Slav Petrov, Melvin Johnson, Ioannis Antonoglou, Julian Schrit- twieser, Amelia Glaese, Jilin Chen, Emily Pitler, Timothy P. Lillicrap, Angeliki Lazaridou, Orhan Firat, James Molloy, Michael ...

    2023

  5. [5]

    Gaurav Arora, Shreya Jain, and Srujana Merugu. 2024. Intent Detection in the Age of LLMs. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track

    2024

  6. [6]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2024. Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR

    2024

  7. [7]

    Sören Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak, and Zachary G. Ives. 2007. DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. In The Semantic Web, 6th International Semantic Web Conference

    2007

  8. [8]

    Barman, Sascha Caron, Emily Sullivan, Henk W

    Kristian G. Barman, Sascha Caron, Emily Sullivan, Henk W. de Regt, Roberto Ruiz de Austri, Mieke Boon, Michael Färber, Stefan Fröse, Faegheh Hasibi, Andreas Ipp, Rukshak Kapoor, Gregor Kasieczka, Daniel Kostić, Michael Krämer, Tobias Golling, Luis G. Lopez, Jesus Marco, Sydney Otten, Pawel Pawlowski, Pietro Vischia, Erik Weber, and Christoph Weniger. 2025...

    arXiv 2025

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Jakob Bauer, Kate Baumli, Feryal M. P. Behbahani, Avishkar Bhoopchand, Nathalie Bradley-Schmieg, Michael Chang, Natalie Clay, Adrian Collister, Vibhavari Dasagi, Lucy Gonzalez, Karol Gregor, Edward Hughes, Sheleem Kashem, Maria Loks-Thompson, Hannah Openshaw, Jack Parker-Holde...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. [n. d.]. Language Models are Few-shot Learners. In Advances in neural information processing systems

  3. [11]

    Lucas, Peter I

    Cameron Browne, Edward Jack Powley, Daniel Whitehouse, Simon M. Lucas, Peter I. Cowling, Philipp Rohlfshagen, Stephen Tavener, Diego Perez Liebana, Spyridon Samothrakis, and Simon Colton. 2012. A Survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    H. Chase. 2022. LangChain. https://github.com/hwchase17/langchain. Accessed: 2025-02-07

    2022

  5. [13]

    Zheng Chu, Jingchang Chen, Qianglong Chen, Haotian Wang, Kun Zhu, Xiyuan Du, Weijiang Yu, Ming Liu, and Bing Qin. 2024. BeamAggR: Beam Aggregation Reasoning over Multi-source Knowledge for Multi-hop Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Associati...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Zhao, Yanping Huang, Andrew M

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Web- son, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robin...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Florin Cuconasu, Giovanni Trappolini, Federico Siciliano, Simone Filice, Cesare Campagnano, Yoelle Maarek, Nicola Tonellotto, and Fabrizio Silvestri. 2024. The Power of Noise: Redefining Retrieval for RAG Systems. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference o...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Shane Culpepper, Fernando Diaz, and Mark D

    J. Shane Culpepper, Fernando Diaz, and Mark D. Smucker. 2018. Research Fron- tiers in Information Retrieval: Report from the Third Strategic Workshop on Information Retrieval in Lorne (SWIRL 2018). SIGIR Forum (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Timothée Darcet, Maxime Oquab, Julien Mairal, and Piotr Bojanowski. 2024. Vision Transformers Need Registers. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Leonardo Mendonça de Moura and Nikolaj S. Bjørner. 2008. Z3: An Efficient SMT Solver. In Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, 14th International Conference, TACAS

    2008

  11. [19]

    Yang Deng, Lizi Liao, Zhonghua Zheng, Grace Hui Yang, and Tat-Seng Chua

  12. [20]

    Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn, and Yarin Gal. 2024. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nat. (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Shahla Farzana, Qunzhi Zhou, and Petar Ristoski. 2023. Knowledge Graph- Enhanced Neural Query Rewriting. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Wenlong Fei, Xiaohua Wang, Min Hu, Qingyu Zhang, and Hongbo Li. 2024. MTLS: Making Texts into Linguistic Symbols. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    2024

  15. [23]

    Debargha Ganguly, Srinivasan Iyengar, Vipin Chaudhary, and Shivkumar Kalya- naraman. 2024. PROOF OF THOUGHT : Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis allows Robust and Interpretable Reasoning. In The First Workshop on System-2 Reasoning at Scale, NeurIPS’24

    2024

  16. [24]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2024. Modular RAG: Transforming RAG Systems into LEGO-like Reconfigurable Frameworks. CoRR abs/2407.21059 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Shashank Gupta, Philipp Hager, Jin Huang, Ali Vardasbi, and Harrie Oosterhuis

  18. [26]

    Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jonathan Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, Chenglin Wu, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2024. MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborat...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Eric Horvitz, Andy Jacobs, and David Hovel. 1999. Attention-Sensitive Alerting. In UAI ’99: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden, July 30 - August 1, 1999

    1999

  20. [28]

    Soyeong Jeong, Jinheon Baek, Sukmin Cho, Sung Ju Hwang, and Jong Park

  21. [29]

    Salim, Falk Scholer, and Damiano Spina

    Kaixin Ji, Danula Hettiachchi, Flora D. Salim, Falk Scholer, and Damiano Spina

  22. [30]

    Kaixin Ji, Damiano Spina, Danula Hettiachchi, Flora Dilys Salim, and Falk Scholer

  23. [31]

    InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), NAACL

    Adaptive-RAG: Learning to Adapt Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models through Question Complexity. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), NAACL

    2024

  24. [32]

    Zhengbao Jiang, Frank Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. 2023. Active Retrieval Aug- mented Generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Houda Bouamor, Ju...

    2023

  25. [33]

    In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2024)

    Characterizing Information Seeking Processes with Multiple Physiological Signals. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR 2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Hideaki Joko, Shubham Chatterjee, Andrew Ramsay, Arjen P De Vries, Jeff Dal- ton, and Faegheh Hasibi. 2024. Doing personal laps: Llm-augmented dialogue construction for personalized multi-session conversational search. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Confere...

    2024

  27. [35]

    In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR

    Examining the Impact of Uncontrolled Variables on Physiological Signals in User Studies for Information Processing Activities. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR

  28. [36]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de Las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Bour, Guillaume Lample, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Lucile Saulnier, Marie-Anne...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Konda and John N

    Vijay R. Konda and John N. Tsitsiklis. 1999. Actor-Critic Algorithms. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 12, [NIPS Conference]

    1999

  30. [38]

    Jiajie Jin, Yutao Zhu, Xinyu Yang, Chenghao Zhang, and Zhicheng Dou. 2024. FlashRAG: A Modular Toolkit for Efficient Retrieval-Augmented Generation Research. CoRR (2024). To appear in the Web Conference 2025

    2024

  31. [39]

    Patrick S. H. Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rock- täschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. Retrieval-Augmented Gener- ation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. In Ad...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick S. H. Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ...

    2020

  33. [41]

    Pimentel

    Pooya Khandel, Andrew Yates, Ana Lucia Varbanescu, Maarten de Rijke, and Andy D. Pimentel. 2024. Distillation vs. Sampling for Efficient Training of Learn- ing to Rank Models. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval, ICTIR

    2024

  34. [42]

    Schapire

    Lihong Li, Wei Chu, John Langford, and Robert E. Schapire. 2010. A Contextual- bandit Approach to Personalized News Article Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web . 661–670

    2010

  35. [43]

    Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. 2021. GShard: Scaling Giant Models with Conditional Computation and Automatic Sharding. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representati...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Xingxuan Li, Ruochen Zhao, Yew Ken Chia, Bosheng Ding, Shafiq Joty, Soujanya Poria, and Lidong Bing. 2024. Chain-of-Knowledge: Grounding Large Language Models via Dynamic Knowledge Adapting over Heterogeneous Sources. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Represe...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Li, Sewon Min, Srinivasan Iyer, Yashar Mehdad, and Wen-tau Yih

    Belinda Z. Li, Sewon Min, Srinivasan Iyer, Yashar Mehdad, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Efficient One-Pass End-to-End Entity Linking for Questions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Guohao Li, Hasan Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. 2023. CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing S...

    2023

  39. [47]

    Pan Lu, Baolin Peng, Hao Cheng, Michel Galley, Kai-Wei Chang, Ying Nian Wu, Song-Chun Zhu, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. Chameleon: Plug-and-Play Composi- tional Reasoning with Large Language Models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Wenzhe Li, Hao Luo, Zichuan Lin, Chongjie Zhang, Zongqing Lu, and Deheng Ye. 2023. A Survey on Transformers in Reinforcement Learning. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. 2023 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Zihao Li, Yuyi Ao, and Jingrui He. 2024. SpherE: Expressive and Interpretable Knowledge Graph Embedding for Set Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 47th In- ternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR. 2629–2634

    2024

  43. [51]

    Defu Lian, Xu Huang, Xiaolong Chen, Jin Chen, Xingmei Wang, Yankai Wang, Haoran Jin, Rui Fan, Zheng Liu, Le Wu, and Enhong Chen. 2023. RecStudio: Towards a Highly-Modularized Recommender System. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Deve...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Marvin Minsky. 1988. Society of mind

    1988

  45. [53]

    Chaitanya Malaviya, Peter Shaw, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2023. QUEST: A Retrieval Dataset of Entity-Seeking Queries with Implicit Set Operations. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Lon...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Harrie Oosterhuis and Maarten de Rijke. 2020. Policy-Aware Unbiased Learning to Rank for Top-k Rankings. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR

    2020

  47. [55]

    W. McCune. [n. d.]. Prover9 and Mace4. ([n. d.])

  48. [56]

    Niall McGuire and Yashar Moshfeghi. 2024. DEEPER: Dense Electroencephalog- raphy Passage Retrieval. CoRR abs/2412.06695 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Shirui Pan, Linhao Luo, Yufei Wang, Chen Chen, Jiapu Wang, and Xindong Wu

  50. [58]

    Theo Olausson, Alex Gu, Ben Lipkin, Cedegao Zhang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Joshua Tenenbaum, and Roger Levy. 2023. LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical...

    2023

  51. [59]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision. In Proceedings...

    2021

  52. [60]

    OpenAI. 2023. OpenAI O1 System Card. https://openai.com/index/openai-o1- system-card/

    2023

  53. [61]

    OpenAI. 2023. OpenAI O3 Mini System Card. https://openai.com/index/o3-mini- system-card/

    2023

  54. [62]

    Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza

    Stephen E. Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    IEEE Trans

    Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    In-Context Learn- ing

    Andrew Parry, Debasis Ganguly, and Manish Chandra. 2024. "In-Context Learn- ing" or: How I learned to stop worrying and love "Applied Information Retrieval". In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR

    2024

  57. [65]

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual ...

    2023

  58. [66]

    Aditya Ramesh, Mikhail Pavlov, Gabriel Goh, Scott Gray, Chelsea Voss, Alec Rad- ford, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event

    2021

  59. [67]

    Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford

    Stephen E. Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1994. Okapi at TREC-3. In Proceedings of The Third Text REtrieval Conference, TREC 1994, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, November 2-4, 1994

    1994

  60. [68]

    Xiaqiang Tang, Qiang Gao, Jian Li, Nan Du, Qi Li, and Sihong Xie. 2025. MBA- RAG: a Bandit Approach for Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation through Question Complexity. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Com- putational Linguistics, COLING

    2025

  61. [69]

    Lee, and Eunho Yang

    Hyun Ryu, Gyeongman Kim, Hyemin S. Lee, and Eunho Yang. 2025. Divide and Translate: Compositional First-Order Logic Translation and Verification for Complex Logical Reasoning. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  62. [70]

    Harrisen Scells, Shengyao Zhuang, and Guido Zuccon. 2022. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Green Information Retrieval Research. InSIGIR ’22: The 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    2022

  63. [71]

    van Hulst, Faegheh Hasibi, Koen Dercksen, Krisztian Balog, and Arjen P

    Johannes M. van Hulst, Faegheh Hasibi, Koen Dercksen, Krisztian Balog, and Arjen P. de Vries. 2020. REL: An Entity Linker Standing on the Shoulders of Giants. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SI...

    2020

  64. [72]

    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. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vo...

    2024

  65. [73]

    Szymanski and Michael D

    Peter T. Szymanski and Michael D. Lemmon. 1993. Adaptive mixtures of local experts are source coding solutions. In Proceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN’88)

    1993

  66. [74]

    Christopher J. C. H. Watkins and Peter Dayan. 1992. Technical Note Q-Learning. Mach. Learn. (1992)

    1992

  67. [75]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurélien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lam- ple. 2023. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation ...

    2023

  68. [76]

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal

  69. [77]

    In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL

    Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge- Intensive Multi-Step Questions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL

  70. [78]

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Shaokun Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Beibin Li, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, and Chi Wang. 2023. AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation Framework. CoRR abs/2308.08155 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Sambasivan, Wenhao Lu, Yajun Wang, Mehul Parsana, Purushottam Kar, and Manik Varma

    Hemanth Vemuri, Sheshansh Agrawal, Shivam Mittal, Deepak Saini, Akshay Soni, Abhinav V. Sambasivan, Wenhao Lu, Yajun Wang, Mehul Parsana, Purushottam Kar, and Manik Varma. 2023. Personalized Retrieval over Millions of Items. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR C...

    2023

  72. [80]

    Xuezhi Wang and Denny Zhou. 2024. Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Without Prompting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS

    2024

  73. [81]

    Ziyi Ye, Qingyao Ai, Yiqun Liu, Maarten de Rijke, Min Zhang, Christina Lioma, and Tuukka Ruotsalo. 2025. Generative language reconstruction from brain recordings. Communications Biology 8, 1 (March 2025), 346

    2025

  74. [82]

    Lawrie, and Benjamin Van Durme

    Orion Weller, Dawn J. Lawrie, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2024. NevIR: Negation in Neural Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL

    2024

  75. [83]

    Williams

    Ronald J. Williams. 1992. Simple Statistical Gradient-Following Algorithms for Connectionist Reinforcement Learning. Mach. Learn. (1992)

    1992

  76. [84]

    Ian Wu, Sravan Jayanthi, Vijay Viswanathan, Simon Rosenberg, Sina Pakazad, Tongshuang Wu, and Graham Neubig. 2024. Synthetic Multimodal Question Generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP

    2024

  77. [85]

    Lifan Yuan, Yangyi Chen, Xingyao Wang, Yi Fung, Hao Peng, and Heng Ji. 2024. CRAFT: Customizing LLMs by Creating and Retrieving from Specialized Toolsets. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  78. [86]

    Zilin Xiao, MING GONG, Jie Wu, Xingyao Zhang, Linjun Shou, and Daxin Jiang

  79. [87]

    In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    Instructed Language Models with Retrievers Are Powerful Entity Linkers. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 11 SIGIR ’25, July 13–18,2025, Padua, Italy Mohanna Hoveyda, Harrie Oosterhuis, Arjen P. de Vries, Maarten de Rijke, and Faegheh Hasibi

    2023

  80. [88]

    Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Langu...

    2018

  81. [89]

    An Zhang, Yang Deng, Yankai Lin, Xu Chen, Ji-Rong Wen, and Tat-Seng Chua

  82. [90]

    Ziyi Ye, Jingtao Zhan, Qingyao Ai, Yiqun Liu, Maarten de Rijke, Christina Lioma, and Tuukka Ruotsalo. 2024. Query Augmentation with Brain Signals. In Proceed- ings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . Association for Computing Machinery

    2024

  83. [91]

    Wenpeng Yin, Muhao Chen, Rui Zhang, Ben Zhou, Fei Wang, and Dan Roth

  84. [92]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Tutorial Abstracts

    Enhancing LLM Capabilities Beyond Scaling Up. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Tutorial Abstracts

    2024

  85. [93]

    Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. 2024. Making Retrieval- Augmented Language Models Robust to Irrelevant Context. In The Twelfth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR

    2024

  86. [94]

    Yanqi Zhou, Tao Lei, Hanxiao Liu, Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Vincent Zhao, An- drew M Dai, Quoc V Le, James Laudon, et al. 2022. Mixture-of-experts with Expert Choice Routing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2022)

    2022

  87. [95]

    Yifei Yuan, Clemencia Siro, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Maarten de Rijke, and Wai Lam. 2024. Asking Multimodal Clarifying Questions in Mixed-Initiative Conversational Search. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, WWW 2024, Singapore, May 13-17, 2024

    2024

  88. [96]

    Matei Zaharia, Omar Khattab, Lingjiao Chen, Jared Quincy Davis, Heather Miller, Chris Potts, James Zou, Michael Carbin, Jonathan Frankle, Naveen Rao, and Ali Ghodsi. 2024. The Shift from Models to Compound AI Systems. https: //bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2024/02/18/compound-ai-systems/

    2024

  89. [97]

    ChengXiang Zhai. 2024. Large Language Models and Future of Information Retrieval: Opportunities and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR

    2024

  90. [99]

    In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’24)

    Large Language Model Powered Agents for Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery

  91. [100]

    Tianhua Zhang, Jiaxin Ge, Hongyin Luo, Yung-Sung Chuang, Mingye Gao, Yuan Gong, Yoon Kim, Xixin Wu, Helen Meng, and Jim Glass. 2024. Natural Language Embedded Programs for Hybrid Language Symbolic Reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL

    2024

  92. [101]

    Jujia Zhao, Wenjie Wang, Yiyan Xu, Teng Sun, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Denoising Diffusion Recommender Model. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR

    2024

  93. [102]

    Wenxuan Zhou, Qiang Ning, Heba Elfardy, Kevin Small, and Muhao Chen. 2022. Answer Consolidation: Formulation and Benchmarking. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

    2022

  94. [103]

    Yingxue Zhou, Jie Hao, Mukund Rungta, Yang Liu, Eunah Cho, Xing Fan, Yan- bin Lu, Vishal Vasudevan, Kellen Gillespie, and Zeynab Raeesy. 2023. Unified Contextual Query Rewriting. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume...

    2023

  95. [105]

    Yunhua Zhou, Guofeng Quan, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023. A Probabilistic Framework for Discovering New Intents. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    2023

  96. [106]

    Mingchen Zhuge, Haozhe Liu, Francesco Faccio, Dylan R. Ashley, Róbert Csordás, Anand Gopalakrishnan, Abdullah Hamdi, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Vincent Herrmann, Kazuki Irie, Louis Kirsch, Bing Li, Guohao Li, Shuming Liu, Jinjie Mai, Piotr Piekos, Aditya Ramesh, Imanol Schla...

    2023

  97. [107]

    Mingchen Zhuge, Wenyi Wang, Louis Kirsch, Francesco Faccio, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2024. GPTSwarm: Language Agents as Optimizable Graphs. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML. 12

    2024

  98. [2023]

    InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR

    Recent Advances in the Foundations and Applications of Unbiased Learning to Rank. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR

  99. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2024, Washington DC, USA, July 14-18, 2024

    Towards Human-centered Proactive Conversational Agents. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2024, Washington DC, USA, July 14-18, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.