Choosing a Venue

Selecting an appropriate venue is a foundational step in the research process. Our group has historically focused on two main types of venues that cater to different goals and interests. The first is Kaggle, a data science competition platform that provides an excellent environment for learning, often with the added incentive of prize money. The second, and the primary focus for our group's publication efforts, is the CLEF (Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum). We have a significant publication history at this European conference, with our contributions published as peer-reviewed working notes in the CEUR proceedings.

When selecting a competition, whether at CLEF, Kaggle, or another workshop, your decision should be driven by genuine interest. This interest typically stems from one of two motivations. The first is a passion for a specific domain. For example, a personal interest in a topic like ornithology can be a powerful motivator to contribute to a task like BirdCLEF. The second is a desire to apply a particular technique. You may want to implement a method learned in a course or a research paper, such as applying network analysis principles to a citation dataset. Choosing a project that aligns with your intrinsic interests is critical for maintaining motivation throughout the semester.

Finally, it is essential to understand the requirements of your chosen venue and to be realistic about your own commitment. The bar for publication at CLEF requires submitting a functional system and a well-written, reproducible paper that details an interesting aspect of your work. Other academic venues may have a much higher bar for novelty, while a Kaggle competition might only require functional code. This commitment is not trivial; historically, only 50-75% of members who begin a project see it through to completion. Before committing to a team and a venue, ensure you have both a legitimate interest in the topic and the time required to contribute meaningfully.

Kaggle

Kaggle has established itself as a central platform for the global data science and machine learning community, providing a multifaceted environment for learning, competition, and collaboration. Acquired by Google in 2017 , it has grown to host over 15 million registered users from 194 countries as of October 2023.

Platform Structure

Kaggle's ecosystem is built around several key components:

• Competitions: This is arguably Kaggle's most well-known feature. Competitions are diverse, ranging from "Featured" competitions, which are high-profile challenges often sponsored by companies with substantial monetary prizes , to "Research" competitions that focus on novel scientific problems. "Playground" competitions offer a less intense environment for learning and experimentation, often with swag as prizes, while "Community" competitions are created by users themselves. A significant development is the prevalence of "Code Competitions," where participants submit their solutions as code within Kaggle Notebooks, ensuring a consistent hardware environment and often restricting external data access or internet connectivity during execution to promote fairness and reproducibility. Some competitions adopt a "Two-Stage" structure, where an initial phase is followed by a second phase with a new test dataset, adding a layer of complexity and testing model robustness. Examples of ongoing competitions include the ARC Prize 2025 (Featured, $725,000 prize) and BirdCLEF+ 2025 (Research, $50,000 prize).
• Datasets: Kaggle hosts a vast repository of datasets, contributed by both competition organizers and the wider user community. This resource is invaluable for independent projects, research, and learning beyond the scope of formal competitions.
• Notebooks (formerly Kernels): This web-based data science environment allows users to write and execute code (primarily Python and R), share their analyses, and collaborate on projects. Notebooks are integral to "Code Competitions" and facilitate learning from publicly shared code, enhancing reproducibility.
• Discussion Forums: Each competition, dataset, and notebook has associated discussion forums, which are vibrant spaces for asking questions, sharing insights, providing feedback, and fostering collaboration among users. Kaggle maintains community guidelines to ensure these interactions remain productive and respectful.
• Learn: Kaggle provides a curated set of tutorials and courses covering fundamental machine learning concepts and practical data science skills, serving as an accessible entry point for beginners.

The evolution of competition formats on Kaggle, particularly the rise of Code Competitions , reflects broader trends in the ML field. As models become more complex and resource-intensive, and as the community places greater emphasis on reproducibility and the entire analytical pipeline, these formats provide a more controlled and equitable environment. This contrasts with earlier "Simple Competitions" that relied solely on the upload of prediction files.

Common Task Types

Kaggle competitions span a wide array of machine learning tasks. These include, but are not limited to:

• Predictive Modeling: Classification and regression tasks are foundational, such as predicting survival on the Titanic (a classic beginner competition) or forecasting house prices.
• Computer Vision: Tasks like image classification , object detection, and facial keypoints detection are common. The Image Matching Challenge 2025 aims to reconstruct 3D scenes from image collections.
• Natural Language Processing (NLP): Sentiment analysis, text classification, and question answering appear regularly.
• Time Series Forecasting: Predicting future values based on historical data, exemplified by the Jane Street Real-Time Market Data Forecasting competition.
• Specialized & Research-Oriented Tasks: Kaggle also hosts challenges on more domain-specific or frontier problems, such as predicting RNA 3D folding , isolated sign language recognition , developing physics-guided ML models for geophysical waveform inversion , or even building AI to generate SVG images using Large Language Models (LLMs).

The Kaggle Community

The Kaggle community is a defining feature of the platform. Its large and global user base actively engages in collaboration through team formation, public code sharing in Notebooks, and extensive discussions in the forums. A key element fostering this engagement is the Progression System. Users can advance through five tiers—Novice, Contributor, Expert, Master, and Grandmaster—based on their achievements in Competitions, Datasets, Notebooks, and Discussions. Performance in competitions is recognized with Bronze, Silver, and Gold medals, awarded based on a team's rank relative to the number of participants. This gamified system incentivizes active participation, continuous learning, and the production of high-quality work, contributing to a dynamic and competitive ecosystem. Beyond the competitive aspect, Kaggle serves as a platform for individuals to showcase their skills to potential employers and network with other professionals, potentially leading to career opportunities.

The open nature of Kaggle, with its emphasis on shared notebooks and active discussion forums , has a profound impact on how ML solutions are developed and disseminated. It democratizes access to state-of-the-art techniques, allowing individuals worldwide to learn from top performers and rapidly iterate on existing solutions. This can accelerate learning and lead to a convergence on effective approaches for particular problem types. However, this same openness can sometimes contribute to a degree of homogenization in solutions, where popular architectures or pre-processing pipelines become dominant. The progression system , while motivating, can also incentivize building upon successful public solutions.

Consequently, achieving true innovation on Kaggle often requires not only mastering established best practices but also identifying unique insights or developing novel approaches that diverge from the prevailing high-scoring strategies.
Furthermore, Kaggle's role has expanded beyond being just a competition platform. Google's acquisition and the hosting of "Recruiting Competitions" underscore its significance as a major talent incubator. The types of "Featured" competitions , frequently sponsored by leading technology companies and other organizations, often reflect pressing industry challenges and the kinds of complex problems for which businesses are actively seeking ML-driven solutions. Success in these competitions can directly enhance career prospects and visibility within the field.

Analyzing a Kaggle Competition:

To effectively participate in a Kaggle competition, a thorough understanding of its components is essential. Key elements typically found on a competition page (e.g., the BirdCLEF+ 2025 competition) include:

• Overview/Description: This section outlines the problem statement, its real-world context or motivation, and the specific goals of the competition.
• Data: Provides details about the dataset(s) used, including their structure, format, how to download them, and often, exploratory data analysis notebooks.
• Evaluation: Crucially, this section specifies the metric used to score submissions and rank participants, along with the required submission file format.
• Rules: Outlines eligibility criteria, rules for team formation and mergers, limits on daily submissions, policies regarding the use of external data, and any specific constraints for code competitions (e.g., time limits, hardware).
• Leaderboard: Displays the rankings of participants based on their submission scores, often split into public (based on a subset of the test data) and private (based on the full test data, revealed at the end) leaderboards.
• Discussion Forum: The central hub for participants to ask questions, share insights, discuss approaches, and report issues.
• Notebooks: A collection of public notebooks shared by organizers and participants, which can include starter code, data exploration, and example solutions.

CLEF

The Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF) is a prominent European-based initiative dedicated to promoting research, innovation, and development in information access systems. A distinguishing feature of CLEF is its strong emphasis on multilinguality and multimodality, addressing the complexities of accessing and processing information across different languages and data types (e.g., text, image, video). CLEF also places significant importance on the advancement of evaluation methodologies, seeking to refine and extend traditional evaluation paradigms like the Cranfield model and explore innovative uses of experimental data.

CLEF's origins trace back to a track within the Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) focused on cross-language information retrieval (IR) for European languages. It became an independent initiative to expand coverage to more languages and a broader array of IR issues. This evolution reflects a broadening understanding of "information access," moving beyond traditional text retrieval to encompass diverse data types and user needs, as evidenced by its inclusion of tasks like species identification from media or health information access , and the integration of the INEX workshop on structured text retrieval.

CLEF's research agenda covers a wide spectrum of information retrieval challenges. While initially focused on monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual text retrieval, its scope has expanded considerably. The initiative now supports investigations into areas such as:

• Information retrieval for various European and non-European languages.
• Multimodal information access, integrating data from different sources like text, images, and audio.
• Specific application domains such as cultural heritage, digital libraries, social media, legal documents, and biomedical information.
• Evaluation of interactive and conversational information retrieval systems.
• Analysis of IR test collections and evaluation measures, including reproducibility and replicability issues.

Labs

The core operational structure of CLEF revolves around its Labs. These are essentially evaluation campaigns or tracks where specific research challenges are proposed, and participating research groups from academia and industry develop and test systems to address them. Each lab typically focuses on a particular theme or set of tasks. For instance, CLEF 2024 hosted a variety of labs, including :

• BioASQ: Large-scale biomedical semantic indexing and question answering.
• CheckThat!: Tasks related to fact-checking, such as check-worthiness estimation, subjectivity detection, and persuasion technique identification.
• ImageCLEF: A multimodal challenge involving image annotation, retrieval, and analysis across various domains (e.g., medical, social media).
• LifeCLEF: Species identification and prediction using various data types (e.g., images, audio), often with a conservation focus.
• PAN: Lab on stylometry, authorship analysis, and digital text forensics.
• Touché: Focus on argumentation systems, including argument retrieval and generation.

These labs provide the necessary infrastructure for system testing, tuning, and evaluation. A key contribution of many labs is the creation of reusable test collections (datasets and ground truth) that benefit the wider research community. Lab organizers define the tasks, provide the data, and specify the evaluation protocols. Participants then submit experimental "runs" (system outputs) and often follow up with "Working Notes" that detail their methodologies and findings. This lab-centric structure fosters the development of highly specialized research communities around specific IR challenges. The sustained focus on "evaluation methodologies" , including experiments with novel review processes like result-less review (where papers are initially assessed on methodology and research questions before results are presented) , indicates that CLEF actively contributes to shaping how research is conducted and assessed within these specialized domains, representing a meta-level contribution to the research landscape.

Working Notes

A significant output of participation in CLEF labs is the "Working Notes." These are technical reports authored by participating teams, describing the systems they developed and the experiments they conducted for the lab tasks. Key characteristics include:

• Publication: CLEF Working Notes are published as part of the CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org), making them citable and accessible to the research community. A list of past volumes is available on the CLEF Initiative website.
• Content: According to the guidelines , working notes should typically cover the tasks performed, main experimental objectives, the approach(es) used (including progress beyond the state-of-the-art), resources employed (datasets, tools), results obtained, a thorough analysis of these results, and perspectives for future work.
• Format and Submission: There is generally no strict upper page limit, though conciseness and effectiveness are encouraged. Submission is handled electronically, often via EasyChair, and specific formatting templates (e.g., CEUR-WS templates) are provided.
• Purpose: Working notes serve as a means for rapid dissemination of detailed experimental findings, methodologies, and even negative results, which are valuable for the scientific community. They represent a less formal but often more detailed account of experimental work compared to traditional conference papers. Some labs, even those run on external platforms like Kaggle but affiliated with CLEF (e.g., BirdCLEF+ ), encourage participants to submit working notes to the main CLEF conference, sometimes with awards for the best contributions. This system acts as a bridge, facilitating the quick sharing of experimental insights while still allowing for more polished, archival publications later.

Analyzing a Lab Task

When approaching a CLEF lab task, the analysis should focus on:

1. Specific Research Questions: Identify the precise questions the lab and its constituent tasks aim to answer.
2. Data Characteristics: Understand the nature of the provided datasets, paying close attention to multilingual aspects, multimodal features, and any specific annotations.
3. Evaluation Methodology: Scrutinize the evaluation metrics and protocols, as these are often carefully designed by experts to assess particular system capabilities or nuances of the problem.

An illustrative example is the CLEF 2024 CheckThat! Lab, Task 1: Check-worthiness estimation.

• Main Problem: The core objective is to determine if a given piece of text—sourced from diverse genres like tweets or political debates—is "check-worthy." This involves assessing whether the text contains a verifiable factual claim and evaluating its potential for causing harm if the claim is false, thereby prioritizing it for fact-checking. For the 2024 edition, this task was offered in Arabic, Dutch, and English.
• Evaluation Metric: Performance in this task is measured using the macro-averaged F1-score. This metric calculates the F1-score (harmonic mean of precision and recall) for each class (check-worthy and not check-worthy) independently and then averages these scores. This approach ensures that performance on potentially less frequent but critical check-worthy claims is given due weight.

Other Venues

Beyond Kaggle and CLEF, several other platforms and major academic conferences play vital roles in the applied AI/ML research landscape.

TREC (Text REtrieval Conference)

• Focus: TREC is a long-standing series of workshops, initiated in 1992 and run by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Its core mission is to support and encourage research within the information retrieval (IR) community by providing the necessary infrastructure for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies and to accelerate the transfer of technology from research labs to commercial products.
• Characteristics: TREC is organized into "tracks," each focusing on a particular subproblem or variant of the retrieval task. Over the years, tracks have covered diverse areas such as ad-hoc retrieval, question answering, cross-language IR, genomics IR, legal IR, and web search. For TREC 2024, continuing tracks included AToMiC (Authoring Tools for Multimedia Content) and NeuCLIR (Neural Cross-Language Information Retrieval), while new tracks included RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation). NIST typically provides large text collections and a set of questions (topics). Participating groups run their retrieval systems on this data and submit their results (e.g., ranked lists of documents). NIST then performs uniform scoring, often using evaluation techniques like pooling, where relevance judgments are made on a subset of documents retrieved by multiple systems.
• Outputs: Participants submit ranked lists of documents or other outputs specific to the track's task. The results, methodologies, and experiences are shared and discussed at the annual TREC workshop, and overview papers for each track are published in the TREC proceedings.
• TREC has been instrumental in advancing IR research by creating valuable, large-scale test collections and fostering a collaborative evaluation environment. Its track-based structure allows for focused research on a wide array of IR challenges. The introduction of the RAG track in 2024 is a clear indication of TREC's responsiveness to current trends in AI, particularly the integration of LLMs with retrieval systems.

KDD Cup

• Focus: The KDD Cup is the premier annual competition in data mining and knowledge discovery, organized by the Association for Computing Machinery's Special Interest Group on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (ACM SIGKDD). Its primary aim is to stimulate research and development in these fields by presenting challenging problems derived from diverse domains.
• Characteristics: KDD Cup challenges are renowned for often involving large, complex datasets and tasks that push the boundaries of current data mining techniques. Historical examples include the 2010 KDD Cup, which focused on predicting student answer correctness using one of the largest educational datasets at the time. More recently, the KDD Cup 2024 featured the Open Academic Graph Challenge (OAG-Challenge) for academic graph mining and the Multi-Task Online Shopping Challenge for LLMs hosted by Amazon.
• Outputs: Participants develop solutions to the posed problems, and the results and winning approaches are typically presented at a dedicated workshop during the annual KDD conference.
• The KDD Cup holds significant prestige and its challenges often set new directions in data mining research. The 2024 LLM challenge for online shopping, for instance, highlights the platform's alignment with contemporary advancements in AI.

NeurIPS Competitions

• Focus: Hosted as part of the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference, one of the top-tier venues for machine learning research, these competitions aim to advance modern AI and ML algorithms. There is a strong encouragement for proposals that address clear scientific questions and have a positive societal impact, particularly those leveraging AI to support disadvantaged communities or to advance other scientific, technological, or business domains relevant to the NeurIPS community.
• Characteristics: NeurIPS features a dedicated Competition Track, with each accepted competition typically having an associated workshop where results are presented and discussed by organizers and participants. The tasks are often novel, cutting-edge, and interdisciplinary. Examples include the 2024 challenge on predicting hi-resolution rain radar movies from multi-band satellite sensors, requiring data fusion and video frame prediction , and past competitions on causal structure learning, multi-agent reinforcement learning (e.g., the Melting Pot Contest), and foundation model prompting for medical image classification.
• Outputs: Competition results are presented at the NeurIPS workshops. Organizers and participants also have the option to submit post-competition analysis papers to the NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks (D\&B) track in the subsequent year.
• NeurIPS competitions are situated at the forefront of ML research, frequently exploring emerging areas and placing a strong emphasis on scientific rigor, methodological innovation, and potential societal benefits.

CVPR/ICCV Challenges

• Focus: The Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) and the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) are the premier international conferences in the field of computer vision. Both conferences host a multitude of workshops, many of which include associated challenges.
• Characteristics: These challenges cover an extensive range of computer vision tasks. Examples from CVPR 2024 workshops include challenges on 3D scene understanding (e.g., the ScanNet++ Novel View Synthesis and 3D Semantic Understanding Challenge), efficient large vision models, human modeling and motion generation, multimodal learning, and various application-driven challenges in domains like agriculture (Agriculture-Vision), sports (CVsports), retail (RetailVision), autonomous driving (WAD workshops often feature multiple challenges, e.g., End-To-End Driving at Scale, Occupancy and Flow), and medical imaging. These challenges typically involve large-scale, highly specialized image or video datasets.
• Outputs: Participants submit their solutions, which are evaluated based on task-specific metrics. Winners and notable solutions are often announced and presented at the corresponding workshops , and results may be summarized in workshop proceedings or overview papers.
• Challenges at CVPR and ICCV are central to driving progress in computer vision, pushing the state-of-the-art in specific sub-fields, and providing crucial benchmarks for new algorithms and techniques. The sheer breadth of topics covered in the CVPR 2024 workshop list attests to the dynamism and scope of research in this area.

Literature Review

A literature review is the process of understanding what other people have already done to solve a problem. In the context of a research competition, your goal is to understand the current state of the art, common techniques, and key evaluation metrics for your specific task. This allows you to build upon existing work rather than reinventing it.

The Review Process

The process should begin with the most direct approach: finding previous solutions to the exact competition you have chosen. For a Kaggle competition, this means studying the notebooks of previous winners, while for an academic venue like CLEF, this involves finding the working notes and papers from teams who participated in the same shared task in prior years. After grounding yourself in direct solutions, you should broaden your search to related academic work. It is not practical to read every paper; instead, you should read strategically by skimming many titles and abstracts to identify relevance before committing to reading a select few papers in-depth. Modern AI-powered research tools can significantly accelerate this process by searching for and consolidating information on a given topic into a summary report.

Organization and Synthesis

As you gather resources, it is critical to keep your sources organized. A dedicated citation manager like Zotero is highly recommended, as it allows you to save articles directly from your browser and share libraries with your team. The final and most important step of the review is to synthesize your findings into a coherent narrative. This written summary, in your own words, should explain the state of the art and how your proposed work fits into it. This synthesis is a critical component for both the initial research proposal and the introduction or related work section of your final paper.

Forming Teams

Finding a Team

Before seeking a team, it is essential to have a clear idea of your research interests. A shared interest in the competition's subject matter is the foundation of a motivated team. For example, you should first identify a competition or dataset that genuinely interests you, such as BirdCLEF for avian bioacoustics or CheckThat! for fact-checking language models.

You can find teammates through the primary ARC Interest Group, within your academic courses (e.g., Deep Learning, Machine Learning), or on community platforms like the OMSCS Slack and the Ed Research Board.

Team Structure and Roles

Once a group with a shared research interest is formed, the first step is to establish a clear structure and define roles.

Team Lead

The Team Lead acts as the primary facilitator and organizer. This role is not necessarily the lead researcher but is responsible for the team's operational integrity. Key responsibilities include coordinating regular team meetings at a cadence that works for all members, ensuring all members are aware of competition deadlines and rules, serving as the main liaison between the team and the broader ARC organization, and taking ultimate responsibility for ensuring that final submissions are completed correctly and on time.

Team Member

Team members are the core contributors to the research project. All members are expected to be active participants. Key responsibilities include actively contributing ideas, code, and text for the final paper, allocating a significant amount of time to the project (estimated at 100-150 hours over the semester, roughly equivalent to a 3-unit course), engaging with the team on a regular basis with a minimum of once per week recommended, and being transparent about capacity while communicating early if unable to continue.

Communication and Collaboration Tools

For group communication, teams will use the main Data Science at Georgia Tech Slack for organization-wide news and can create private channels or use Microsoft Teams or Discord for internal discussion. Collaborative writing should be done using Overleaf for LaTeX or Google Docs for other documents. All code must be version-controlled using GitHub, with repositories hosted in the official Data Science at Georgia Tech ARC GitHub organization.

Conflict Resolution and Team Dynamics

Proactively manage team dynamics by setting clear expectations at the project's start regarding communication, workload, and standards. It is important to maintain professional empathy, recognizing that all participants are managing other commitments. Grant grace for unforeseen circumstances, but also hold team members accountable for their commitments. Should conflicts arise that cannot be resolved internally, teams should utilize available resources by seeking guidance from experienced members or ARC group leadership. Ultimately, consistent, early, and clear communication is the most effective tool for preventing and resolving team conflicts.

Conducting Experiments

Once a team is formed and a proposal is in place, the core of the research work begins with conducting experiments. This phase is heavily reliant on the ability to implement and manage large-scale systems. The evaluation-focused competitions we participate in often involve datasets ranging from tens to hundreds of gigabytes, demanding efficient data processing and robust code.

The Experimental Workflow

The process begins with downloading the dataset and performing a thorough exploratory data analysis (EDA). The goal of EDA is to develop a deep understanding of the data's characteristics, including its schema, the size and nature of the train/test splits, and the statistical properties of its main features. Following this analysis, you must design your experiments, starting with a clear and simple baseline. For an information retrieval task, this might involve running a BM25 keyword search. You then implement your novel methodology, which is intended to improve upon this baseline. A key part of this stage is conducting ablation studies, where you systematically remove components from your system to isolate and quantify their individual contribution to the overall performance.

Organization and Reproducibility

As you conduct these experiments, meticulous organization of both code and data is paramount to ensure your results are reproducible. While specific organizational strategies are left to individual teams, it is essential to keep a detailed log of all experiments, their parameters, and their outcomes. This can be managed in a spreadsheet or integrated directly into your paper draft. Furthermore, you must be familiar with the standard evaluation formats required by the venue, such as the TREC-style format common in information retrieval conferences.

Team Collaboration and Project Management

Beyond the technical execution, conducting experiments successfully is a significant project management challenge. A critical task for the team is to strategically break down the work into smaller, independent components that members can tackle in parallel. This process of decomposing the problem requires constant and clear communication among all team members. Effective communication is the most crucial tool for navigating the complexities of collaborative research, ensuring that workloads are distributed effectively and the project remains on track.

Writing a Paper

A primary goal of the ARC group is to publish research. Because applied research competitions provide a well-defined evaluation task, dataset, and metric, our focus in writing is to clearly document the system we build and any novel contributions within our workflow.

The Structure of a Competition Paper

A typical competition paper is organized into several key sections. The introduction provides an overview of the paper, context for the dataset and your solution, and the central thesis of your work. This is followed by the background and related work section, which situates your research by discussing past work in the competition, related systems, and any technical context necessary to understand your solution.

The core of the paper is the methodology, where you detail the unique aspects of your system. This includes the tools used, data transformations performed, and any ablation studies conducted to determine the contribution of different components. It should begin with simple baselines that your work improves upon. Crucially, this section must contain all necessary details to ensure your work is reproducible. After the methodology, the results section presents quantitative findings from applying your methods to the data, including pipeline runtimes and performance scores for all systems tested.

The discussion section offers your interpretation of the results and their implications. This is where you analyze why the system behaved as it did and discuss ideas that arose from the experimental outcomes. This section should also include a discussion of future work, outlining potential research directions if you had more time. Finally, the conclusion briefly summarizes the paper's main contributions and closes out the work.

The Writing Process and Timeline

While the intensive coding phase often precedes focused writing, preliminary sections like the literature review can be drafted early in the semester. The main writing effort typically requires 20 to 40 hours over a period of two to four weeks. It is advisable to begin this process as early as possible.

All papers should be written in a collaborative LaTeX environment like Overleaf, using the templates provided by the group or the conference venue. The quality of writing should be high, similar to that expected in a graduate-level course like Machine Learning. The goal is to clearly document the results of the hard work already completed during the research phase.

Using Generative AI Tools

Generative AI tools can be leveraged responsibly as part of the writing process. They are effective for assistive tasks like formatting data into tables or helping to find related works for a literature review. However, you are strongly discouraged from using these tools to generate large portions of your paper, especially the methodology, results, or discussion. Doing the analysis and writing by hand is a critical part of understanding the research domain and demonstrating your comprehension of the work. Using AI to automate the core analysis is a form of academic dishonesty and cheats you of a key learning experience. Always be transparent about your use of these tools and ensure you are representing your school and lab responsibly.

Submission and Peer Review

Once submitted, your paper will undergo peer review. Acceptance rates vary significantly by venue. For workshops like those at CLEF, our group has a high likelihood of acceptance, though you may be required to make revisions based on reviewer feedback. For more selective conferences, the bar for acceptance is much higher. If a paper is not accepted at a particular venue, the work can always be shared publicly by uploading it as a preprint to a server like arXiv.

Schedule

• Term: Fall 2025
• Meeting Format: Synchronous 1-hour online weekly meetings
• Time Commitment: ~3-4 hours per week, including the meeting and 2-3 hours of asynchronous work

Course Description

This interest group is designed to prepare Georgia Tech students for making original research contributions at competitive, evaluation-focused academic venues such as CLEF.

The interest group follows a dual-module format over the semester:

• Module 1 (weeks 1–8) focuses on critically analyzing the applied research landscape of AI, Machine Learning, and Information Retrieval, exploring platforms like Kaggle, KDD, NeurIPS, TREC, and CLEF. The goal is to identify viable shared tasks and begin developing research proposals for a CLEF 2026 shared task.

• Module 2 (weeks 9–13) concentrates on developing the essential skills required to use Georgia Tech's PACE supercomputing cluster , providing hands-on experience with tools like SLURM, Apptainer, PyTorch, and Hugging Face. The interest group culminates in students being fully equipped to propose and execute original research.

Calendar and Weekly Schedule

This schedule provides a week-by-week breakdown of topics, hands-on work, and key deliverables.

Fall 2025 Interest Group

Below are the videos for each week for Fall 2025 on DS@GT ARC YouTube channel

• Orientation/Week 1: The orientation meeting was held on campus at Georgia Tech
• Week 2: Introductions + choosing a venue.
• Week 3: This week was all about choosing a competition venue and a task within, and preparing slides to describe the task, dataset, and what excites you about this task.
• Week 4: This week was all about Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA).
• Week 5: This week was all about Literature Review.

Reading Group

Welcome to DS@GT ARC's reading group collection. This section contains research papers and work discussed by our team members during our reading group sessions. Reading group sessions are typically held in the Fall semester in parallel with the Fall Semester Interest Group. The goal of the reading group is to keep our researchers engaged and updated on the latest news in the AI space.

Overview

Go to our Zotero library for the full collection of papers discussed.

Example Topics

Transformers 101

• Attention is All You Need

Low-Rank Adaptation, LoRA

• LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models