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

Litu Ou

dblp:338/9757 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0005-8380-1368ORCID · reported

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 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
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 61% Transfer learning and domain adaptation · 30% Efficient and distributed learning · 9%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval
query understanding
1.012026
Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval
reranking
1.012026
Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval › ranking
text ranking
1.012026
Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research · SIGIR 2026
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
chain-of-thought reasoning
0.712023
Specializing Smaller Language Models towards Multi-Step Reasoning · ICML 2023
Machine learning › Transfer learning and domain adaptation › model adaptation
model specialization
0.712023
Specializing Smaller Language Models towards Multi-Step Reasoning · ICML 2023
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation › large language model reasoning
multi-step reasoning
0.712023
Specializing Smaller Language Models towards Multi-Step Reasoning · ICML 2023
Information retrieval › document retrieval
passage retrieval
0.312026
Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research · SIGIR 2026
Machine learning › Efficient and distributed learning › model compression
knowledge distillation
0.212023
Specializing Smaller Language Models towards Multi-Step Reasoning · ICML 2023

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

multi-vector retrieval · 1.0lexical retrieval · 1.0learned sparse retrieval · 1.0large language model agents · 1.0knowledge distillation · 0.7few-shot prompting · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research
abstract
Deep research has emerged as an important task that aims to address hard queries that need extensive open-web exploration. To tackle it, most prior work equips large language model (LLM)-based agents with opaque web search APIs, enabling agents to iteratively issue search queries, retrieve external evidence, and reason over it. Despite search's essential role in deep research, black-box web search APIs leave the behaviour of established text ranking methods in deep research largely unclear. To fill this gap, we reproduce key findings and best practices for text ranking methods in deep research. We examine their effectiveness from three perspectives: (i) retrieval units (documents vs. passages), (ii) pipeline configurations (different retrievers, re-rankers, and re-ranking depths), and (iii) query characteristics (the mismatch between agent-issued queries and the training queries of text rankers). We perform experiments on BrowseComp-Plus, a deep research dataset with a fixed corpus, evaluating 2 open-source agents, 5 retrievers, and 3 re-rankers. We find that agent-issued queries typically follow web-search-style syntax (e.g., quoted exact matches), favouring lexical, learned sparse, and multi-vector retrievers; passage-level units are more efficient under limited context windows, and avoid the difficulties of document length normalisation in lexical retrieval; re-ranking is highly effective. We further propose a query-to-question (Q2Q) method that translates agent-issued queries into natural-language questions, significantly reducing the query mismatch.
Chuan Meng, Litu Ou, Sean MacAvaney, Jeff Dalton 0001
SIGIR2
2023 Specializing Smaller Language Models towards Multi-Step Reasoning
abstract
The surprising ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform well on complex reasoning with only few-shot chain-of-thought prompts is believed to emerge only in very large-scale models. We show that such abilities can, in fact, be distilled down from GPT-3.5 (≥ 175B) to T5 variants (≤ 11B). We propose model specialization, to specialize the model’s ability towards a target task. The hypothesis is that large models (commonly viewed as larger than 100B) have strong modeling power such that they can perform a large spectrum of tasks. Small models (commonly viewed as smaller than 10B) have limited model capacity, but if we specialize their capacity towards a target task, the model can achieve decent performance improvements. We use multi-step math reasoning as our testbed because it is a very typical emergent ability. We show two important aspects of model abilities: (1) balancing language model’s performance on multiple tasks is a delicate matter, as improvements on one task may compromise other tasks; (2) yet by intentionally paying the price of decreased generic ability, we can clearly improve across different model scales smaller than 10B towards a specialized multi-step math reasoning ability. We further give comprehensive discussions about important design choices for better generalization, including the data format mixture and the start model checkpoint. We hope our practice and discoveries can serve as an important attempt towards specialized smaller models in the new research paradigm set by LLMs.
Hao Peng 0018, Litu Ou, Ashish Sabharwal, Tushar Khot
ICML3