MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412378051 · doi:10.1145/3726302.3730335

Tip of the Tongue Query Elicitation for Simulated Evaluation

2025· article· en· W4412378051 on OpenAlexaff
To Eun Kim, Fernando Díaz, Jaime Arguello, Bhaskar Mitra

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsMicrosoft (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Standards and Technology
KeywordsComputer scienceTongueInformation retrievalQuery optimizationArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) search occurs when a user struggles to recall a specific identifier, such as a document title. While common, existing search systems often fail to effectively support TOT scenarios. Research on TOT retrieval is further constrained by the challenge of collecting queries, as current approaches rely heavily on community question-answering (CQA) websites, leading to labor-intensive evaluation and domain bias. To overcome these limitations, we introduce two methods for eliciting TOT queries-leveraging large language models (LLMs) and human participants-to facilitate simulated evaluations of TOT retrieval systems. Our LLM-based TOT user simulator generates synthetic TOT queries at scale, achieving high correlations with how CQA-based TOT queries rank TOT retrieval systems when tested in the Movie domain. Additionally, these synthetic queries exhibit high linguistic similarity to CQA-derived queries. For human-elicited queries, we developed an interface that uses visual stimuli to place participants in a TOT state, enabling the collection of natural queries. In the Movie domain, system rank correlation and linguistic similarity analyses confirm that human-elicited queries are both effective and closely resemble CQA-based queries. These approaches reduce reliance on CQA-based data collection while expanding coverage to underrepresented domains, such as Landmark and Person. LLM-elicited queries for the Movie, Landmark, and Person domains have been released as test queries in the TREC 2024 TOT track, with human-elicited queries scheduled for inclusion in the TREC 2025 TOT track. Additionally, we provide source code for synthetic query generation and the human query collection interface, along with curated visual stimuli used for eliciting TOT queries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207