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

Francien Barkhof

dblp:400/4857 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0002-9414-4402ORCID · reported

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

Databases, 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%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval
evaluation
0.912025
Reproducing NevIR: Negation in Neural Information Retrieval · SIGIR 2025
Information retrieval › retrieval models › neural retrieval › neural ranking model
LLM-based ranking
0.912025
Reproducing NevIR: Negation in Neural Information Retrieval · SIGIR 2025
Information retrieval › query understanding
negation handling
0.912025
Reproducing NevIR: Negation in Neural Information Retrieval · SIGIR 2025
Information retrieval › retrieval models
neural retrieval
0.912025
Reproducing NevIR: Negation in Neural Information Retrieval · SIGIR 2025
Information retrieval
reranking
0.912025
Reproducing NevIR: Negation in Neural Information Retrieval · SIGIR 2025

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

listwise LLM re-ranking · 0.9cross-encoder re-ranking · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Reproducing NevIR: Negation in Neural Information Retrieval
abstract
Negation is a fundamental aspect of human communication, yet it remains a challenge for Language Models (LMs) in Information Retrieval (IR). Despite the heavy reliance of modern neural IR systems on LMs, little attention has been given to their handling of negation. In this study, we reproduce and extend the findings of NevIR, a benchmark study that revealed most IR models perform at or below the level of random ranking when dealing with negation. We replicate NevIR's original experiments and evaluate newly developed state-of-the-art IR models. Our findings show that a recently emerging category-listwise Large Language Model (LLM) re-rankers-outperforms other models but still underperforms human performance. Additionally, we leverage ExcluIR, a benchmark dataset designed for exclusionary queries with extensive negation, to assess the generalisability of negation understanding. Our findings suggest that fine-tuning on one dataset does not reliably improve performance on the other, indicating notable differences in their data distributions. Furthermore, we observe that only cross-encoders and listwise LLM re-rankers achieve reasonable performance across both negation tasks.
Coen van den Elsen, Francien Barkhof, Thijmen Nijdam, Simon Lupart, Mohammad Aliannejadi
SIGIR2