The 4th Workshop on AI Agent for Information Retrieval: Generating and Ranking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of information retrieval has significantly transformed with the integration of AI technologies. AI agents, especially those leveraging LLMs and vast computational power, have revolutionized in- formation retrieval, processing, and presentation. LLM agents, with advanced memory, reasoning, and planning capabilities, can perform complex tasks, engage in coherent conversations, and provide personalized responses. Despite these advancements, challenges such as ensuring relevance and accuracy, mitigating biases, providing real-time responses, and maintaining data security remain. This workshop aims to explore these challenges, share innovative solutions, and discuss future directions. It will provide a platform to bring together researchers and practitioners to discuss the latest theoretical advancements and practical implementations of AI agents in information retrieval. Topics include AI in search, recommendation, and personalization systems. By gathering a diverse group of experts, the workshop seeks to deepen the understanding of AI agents in information retrieval, advance the field, and enhance its societal impact. Participants will gain insights into cutting-edge research and emerging trends, and foster knowledge exchange and collaboration within the community.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".