# Comparing Retrieval Methods for Academic Advisor Discovery: A Six-Method Study of 768 CS Faculty Profiles Across 9 US Universities

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.03901 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03901/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04906/) (2020)
- [UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.03426/) (2018)
- [BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08663/) (2021)
- [SPECTER: Document-level Representation Learning using Citation-informed Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.07180/) (2020)
- [Sparse, Dense, and Attentional Representations for Text Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00181/) (2020)
- [A Few Brief Notes on DeepImpact, COIL, and a Conceptual Framework for Information Retrieval Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.14807/) (2021)
- [WISER: A Semantic Approach for Expert Finding in Academia based on Entity Linking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.03947/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We present a comparative evaluation of six information retrieval methods for the task of academic advisor discovery: ranking CS faculty members by relevance to a graduate applicant's research interest statement. The methods span sparse lexical matching (Jaccard overlap, TF-IDF, BM25), dense semantic retrieval (all-MiniLM-L6-v2 sentence embeddings), hybrid score fusion, and learning-to-rank. Evaluation uses a new domain-specific collection: 768 faculty profiles scraped from 9 US CS departments, with 162 graded relevance judgments (grade 0/1/2) across 5 queries representing distinct graduate student research profiles. Across all five queries, Reranked achieves the highest mean NDCG@10 (0.477, std 0.138), followed by Semantic (0.450), Hybrid (0.421), BM25 (0.406), Jaccard (0.303), and TF-IDF (0.246). After Bonferroni correction across all 15 pairwise comparisons, TF-IDF is significantly worse than BM25, Semantic, Hybrid, and Reranked; no other pairwise difference survives correction at 5 queries. A field ablation reveals that biography alone (NDCG 0.634) outperforms the full model combining biography with research area tags (0.593). A controlled experiment shows that concatenating arXiv paper abstracts reduces NDCG@10 by 0.176, motivating a late-fusion architecture. All code, scrapers, and relevance labels are released openly.