Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jacob Bank
dblp:57/9056
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1
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 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Information retrieval › ranking
dynamic ranking |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Dynamic ranked retrieval · WSDM 2011 |
Information retrieval
interactive information retrieval |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Dynamic ranked retrieval · WSDM 2011 |
Information retrieval
retrieval models |
0.1 | 1 | 2011 | Dynamic ranked retrieval · WSDM 2011 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
result diversification · 0.1decision theory · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Dynamic ranked retrievalabstractWe present a theoretically well-founded retrieval model for dynamically generating rankings based on interactive user feedback. Unlike conventional rankings that remain static after the query was issued, dynamic rankings allow and anticipate user activity, thus providing a way to combine the otherwise contradictory goals of result diversification and high recall. We develop a decision-theoretic framework to guide the design and evaluation of algorithms for this interactive retrieval setting. Furthermore, we propose two dynamic ranking algorithms, both of which are computationally efficient. We prove that these algorithms provide retrieval performance that is guaranteed to be at least as good as the optimal static ranking algorithm. In empirical evaluations, dynamic ranking shows substantial improvements in retrieval performance over conventional static rankings. Christina Brandt, Thorsten Joachims, Yisong Yue, Jacob Bank |
WSDM | 4 |