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

Daria Alexander

dblp:290/0871 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-9478-7083ORCID · corroborated

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 4 · 2 first-author · 4 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 · 77% Data mining · 23%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › query understanding › query classification
query intent classification
1.422025
In a Few Words: Comparing Weak Supervision and LLMs for Short Query Intent Classification · SIGIR 2025
ORCAS-I: Queries Annotated with Intent using Weak Supervision · SIGIR 2022
Data mining › text mining › text classification
classifier comparison
0.912025
In a Few Words: Comparing Weak Supervision and LLMs for Short Query Intent Classification · SIGIR 2025
Information retrieval
evaluation
0.912025
In a Few Words: Comparing Weak Supervision and LLMs for Short Query Intent Classification · SIGIR 2025
Information retrieval
query understanding
0.612022
ORCAS-I: Queries Annotated with Intent using Weak Supervision · SIGIR 2022

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

weak supervision · 1.4large language model · 0.9in-context learning · 0.9fine-tuning · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Counterfactual Query Rewriting to Use Historical Relevance Feedback
Jüri Keller, Maik Fröbe, Gijs Hendriksen, Daria Alexander, Martin Potthast, Matthias Hagen, Philipp Schaer
ECIR (3)4
2025 In a Few Words: Comparing Weak Supervision and LLMs for Short Query Intent Classification
abstract
User intent classification is an important task in information retrieval. Previously, user intents were classified manually and automatically; the latter helped to avoid hand labelling of large datasets. Recent studies explored whether LLMs can reliably determine user intent. However, researchers have recognized the limitations of using generative LLMs for classification tasks. In this study, we empirically compare user intent classification into informational, navigational, and transactional categories, using weak supervision and LLMs. Specifically, we evaluate LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct and LLaMA-3.1-70B-Instruct for in-context learning and LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct for fine-tuning, comparing their performance to an established baseline classifier trained using weak supervision (ORCAS-I). Our results indicate that while LLMs outperform weak supervision in recall, they continue to struggle with precision, which shows the need for improved methods to balance both metrics effectively.
Daria Alexander, Arjen P. de Vries
SIGIR1
2023 Investigating the Impact of Query Representation on Medical Information Retrieval
Georgios Peikos, Daria Alexander, Gabriella Pasi, Arjen P. de Vries
ECIR (2)2
2022 ORCAS-I: Queries Annotated with Intent using Weak Supervision
abstract
User intent classification is an important task in information retrieval. In this work, we introduce a revised taxonomy of user intent. We take the widely used differentiation between navigational, transactional and informational queries as a starting point, and identify three different sub-classes for the informational queries: instrumental, factual and abstain. The resulting classification of user queries is more fine-grained, reaches a high level of consistency between annotators, and can serve as the basis for an effective automatic classification process. The newly introduced categories help distinguish between types of queries that a retrieval system could act upon, for example by prioritizing different types of results in the ranking.
Daria Alexander, Wojciech Kusa, Arjen P. de Vries
SIGIR1