MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413243547 · doi:10.1145/3759453

A Survey of Conversational Search

2025· article· en· W4413243547 on OpenAlexaff
Fengran Mo, Kelong Mao, Ziliang Zhao, Hongjin Qian, Haonan Chen, Yiruo Cheng, Xiaoxi Li, Yutao Zhu, Zhicheng Dou, Jian‐Yun Nie

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Information Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSemantic searchContext (archaeology)UnisonSearch engineNatural languageData scienceHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a cornerstone of modern information access, search engines have become indispensable in everyday life. With the rapid advancements in AI and natural language processing (NLP) technologies, particularly large language models (LLMs), search engines have evolved to support more intuitive and intelligent interactions between users and systems. Conversational search, an emerging paradigm for next-generation search engines, leverages natural language dialogue to facilitate complex and precise information retrieval, thus attracting significant attention. Unlike traditional keyword-based search engines, conversational search systems enhance user experience by supporting intricate queries, maintaining context over multi-turn interactions, and providing robust information integration and processing capabilities. Key components such as query reformulation, search clarification, conversational retrieval, and response generation work in unison to enable these sophisticated interactions. In this survey, we explore the recent advancements and potential future directions in conversational search, examining the critical modules that constitute a conversational search system. We highlight the integration of LLMs in enhancing these systems and discuss the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead in this dynamic field. Additionally, we provide insights into real-world applications and robust evaluations of current conversational search systems, aiming to guide future research and development in conversational search.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Information SystemsSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207