Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Bhowmick, S.S."
  1. Sun, A.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Nguyen, K.T.N.; Bai, G.: Tag-based social image retrieval : an empirical evaluation (2011) 0.01 
    0.008984657 = product of:
  0.02695397 = sum of:
    0.0037603125 = weight(_text_:e in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0037603125 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047356583 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03294669 = queryNorm
        0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
    0.023193657 = weight(_text_:k in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023193657 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11761237 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03294669 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Tags associated with social images are valuable information source for superior image search and retrieval experiences. Although various heuristics are valuable to boost tag-based search for images, there is a lack of general framework to study the impact of these heuristics. Specifically, the task of ranking images matching a given tag query based on their associated tags in descending order of relevance has not been well studied. In this article, we take the first step to propose a generic, flexible, and extensible framework for this task and exploit it for a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of various methods for ranking images. To this end, we identified five orthogonal dimensions to quantify the matching score between a tagged image and a tag query. These five dimensions are: (i) tag relatedness to measure the degree of effectiveness of a tag describing the tagged image; (ii) tag discrimination to quantify the degree of discrimination of a tag with respect to the entire tagged image collection; (iii) tag length normalization analogous to document length normalization in web search; (iv) tag-query matching model for the matching score computation between an image tag and a query tag; and (v) query model for tag query rewriting. For each dimension, we identify a few implementations and evaluate their impact on NUS-WIDE dataset, the largest human-annotated dataset consisting of more than 269K tagged images from Flickr. We evaluated 81 single-tag queries and 443 multi-tag queries over 288 search methods and systematically compare their performances using standard metrics including Precision at top-K, Mean Average Precision (MAP), Recall, and Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG).
    Language
    e
  2. Chin, J.Y.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Jatowt, A.: On-demand recent personal tweets summarization on mobile devices (2019) 0.00 
    7.520625E-4 = product of:
  0.0045123748 = sum of:
    0.0045123748 = weight(_text_:e in 5246) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0045123748 = score(doc=5246,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047356583 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03294669 = queryNorm
        0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 5246, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5246)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Language
    e
  3. Li, H.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Sun, A.: AffRank: affinity-driven ranking of products in online social rating networks (2011) 0.00 
    6.2671874E-4 = product of:
  0.0037603125 = sum of:
    0.0037603125 = weight(_text_:e in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0037603125 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.047356583 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03294669 = queryNorm
        0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Language
    e

Authors