Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Marc Mason

dblp:345/9816 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0001-1784-6526ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Information retrieval · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval
evaluation
1.822026
Auto-ARGUE: LLM-Based Report Generation Evaluation · SIGIR 2026
On the Evaluation of Machine-Generated Reports · SIGIR 2024
Information retrieval › evaluation › text generation evaluation
report generation evaluation
1.822026
Auto-ARGUE: LLM-Based Report Generation Evaluation · SIGIR 2026
On the Evaluation of Machine-Generated Reports · SIGIR 2024
Information retrieval › evaluation › text generation evaluation
retrieval-augmented generation evaluation
1.012026
Auto-ARGUE: LLM-Based Report Generation Evaluation · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval
question answering
0.312026
Auto-ARGUE: LLM-Based Report Generation Evaluation · SIGIR 2026

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

large language model · 2.5nugget-based evaluation · 1.5ARGUE framework · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Auto-ARGUE: LLM-Based Report Generation Evaluation
abstract
Generation of citation-backed reports is a primary use case for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. While open-source evaluation tools exist for various RAG tasks, tools designed for report generation are lacking. Accordingly, we introduce Auto-ARGUE, a robust LLM-based implementation of the recently proposed ARGUE framework for report generation evaluation. We present analysis of Auto-ARGUE on the report generation pilot task from the TREC 2024 NeuCLIR track and on two tasks from the TREC 2024 RAG track, showing good system-level correlations with human judgments. Additionally, we release ARGUE-viz, a web app for visualization and fine-grained analysis of Auto-ARGUE judgments and scores1.
William Gantt Walden, Marc Mason, Orion Weller, Laura Dietz, John M. Conroy, Neil P. Molino, Hannah Recknor, Bryan Li, Gabrielle K. Liu, Dawn J. Lawrie, James Mayfield, Eugene Yang 0001
SIGIR2
2024 On the Evaluation of Machine-Generated Reports
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled new ways to satisfy information needs. Although great strides have been made in applying them to settings like document ranking and short-form text generation, they still struggle to compose complete, accurate, and verifiable long-form reports. Reports with these qualities are necessary to satisfy the complex, nuanced, or multi-faceted information needs of users. In this perspective paper, we draw together opinions from industry and academia, and from a variety of related research areas, to present our vision for automatic report generation, and---critically---a flexible framework by which such reports can be evaluated. In contrast with other summarization tasks, automatic report generation starts with a detailed description of an information need, stating the necessary background, requirements, and scope of the report. Further, the generated reports should be complete, accurate, and verifiable. These qualities, which are desirable---if not required---in many analytic report-writing settings, require rethinking how to build and evaluate systems that exhibit these qualities. To foster new efforts in building these systems, we present an evaluation framework that draws on ideas found in various evaluations. To test completeness and accuracy, the framework uses nuggets of information, expressed as questions and answers, that need to be part of any high-quality generated report. Additionally, evaluation of citations that map claims made in the report to their source documents ensures verifiability.
James Mayfield, Eugene Yang 0001, Dawn J. Lawrie, Sean MacAvaney, Paul McNamee, Douglas W. Oard, Luca Soldaini, Ian Soboroff, Orion Weller, Efsun Selin Kayi, Kate Sanders 0002, Marc Mason, Noah Hibbler
SIGIR12