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

Aaron H. A. Fletcher

dblp:439/7988 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0000-0002-4776-066XORCID · reported

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 2 first-author · 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%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › information filtering
technology-assisted review
2.022026
Confidence-Based Stopping Methods for Systematic Reviews · SIGIR 2026
Decision-Theoretic Stopping Rules for Document Screening · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval › retrieval models
decision-theoretic retrieval
1.012026
Decision-Theoretic Stopping Rules for Document Screening · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval › information filtering › technology-assisted review
stopping criteria
1.012026
Decision-Theoretic Stopping Rules for Document Screening · SIGIR 2026
Information retrieval
systematic review
1.012026
Confidence-Based Stopping Methods for Systematic Reviews · SIGIR 2026

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

heuristic stopping · 1.0expected value of perfect information · 1.0decision theory · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Decision-Theoretic Stopping Rules for Document Screening
abstract
Deciding when to stop reviewing the results of a search is a common problem with multiple applications. Existing stopping rules developed within Technology-Assisted Review (TAR) aim to achieve a pre-specified recall target and do not take into account the reason for examining the results, potentially leading to sub-optimal recommendations. This paper applies decision theory to the problem and uses it to derive three practical stopping policies based on the Expected Value of Perfect Information. The approach is applied to two professional search tasks: patent examining and systematic reviewing. Experiments on CLEF-IP and medical systematic review datasets show that the proposed approach generally produces more appropriate stopping decisions than existing methods, as demonstrated by higher net utility under the evaluated cost and payoff settings.
Aaron H. A. Fletcher, Mark Stevenson 0001
SIGIR1
2026 Confidence-Based Stopping Methods for Systematic Reviews
abstract
Technology Assisted Review stopping methods aim to ensure that no more documents are screened than necessary. Most existing approaches focus on achieving a target recall, which does not consider whether an information need has been met. This paper introduces two heuristic stopping methods that instead monitor whether screened documents contain enough information to make a decision. Evaluation on a standard dataset of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews demonstrates that the proposed approaches substantially reduce the number of documents that need to be examined while, in the majority of cases, maintaining conclusions that are consistent with all evidence available.
Aaron H. A. Fletcher, Mark Stevenson 0001
SIGIR1