Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03151801 = product of:
  0.06303602 = sum of:
    0.06303602 = product of:
      0.12607203 = sum of:
        0.12607203 = weight(_text_:network in 948) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12607203 = score(doc=948,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.22917621 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05146125 = queryNorm
            0.5501096 = fieldWeight in 948, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=948)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Main path analysis is a popular method for extracting the scientific backbone from the citation network of a research domain. Existing approaches ignored the semantic relationships between the citing and cited publications, resulting in several adverse issues, in terms of coherence of main paths and coverage of significant studies. This paper advocated the semantic main path network analysis approach to alleviate these issues based on citation function analysis. A wide variety of SciBERT-based deep learning models were designed for identifying citation functions. Semantic citation networks were built by either including important citations, for example, extension, motivation, usage and similarity, or excluding incidental citations like background and future work. Semantic main path network was built by merging the top-K main paths extracted from various time slices of semantic citation network. In addition, a three-way framework was proposed for the quantitative evaluation of main path analysis results. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis on three research areas of computational linguistics demonstrated that, compared to semantics-agnostic counterparts, different types of semantic main path networks provide complementary views of scientific knowledge flows. Combining them together, we obtained a more precise and comprehensive picture of domain evolution and uncover more coherent development pathways between scientific ideas.

0.024413744 = product of:
  0.048827488 = sum of:
    0.048827488 = product of:
      0.097654976 = sum of:
        0.097654976 = weight(_text_:network in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097654976 = score(doc=3017,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22917621 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05146125 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is important to help researchers find valuable papers from a large literature collection. To this end, many graph-based ranking algorithms have been proposed. However, most of these algorithms suffer from the problem of ranking bias. Ranking bias hurts the usefulness of a ranking algorithm because it returns a ranking list with an undesirable time distribution. This paper is a focused study on how to alleviate ranking bias by leveraging the heterogeneous network structure of the literature collection. We propose a new graph-based ranking algorithm, MutualRank, that integrates mutual reinforcement relationships among networks of papers, researchers, and venues to achieve a more synthetic, accurate, and less-biased ranking than previous methods. MutualRank provides a unified model that involves both intra- and inter-network information for ranking papers, researchers, and venues simultaneously. We use the ACL Anthology Network as the benchmark data set and construct the gold standard from computer linguistics course websites of well-known universities and two well-known textbooks. The experimental results show that MutualRank greatly outperforms the state-of-the-art competitors, including PageRank, HITS, CoRank, Future Rank, and P-Rank, in ranking papers in both improving ranking effectiveness and alleviating ranking bias. Rankings of researchers and venues by MutualRank are also quite reasonable.

0.024413744 = product of:
  0.048827488 = sum of:
    0.048827488 = product of:
      0.097654976 = sum of:
        0.097654976 = weight(_text_:network in 5813) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097654976 = score(doc=5813,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.22917621 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05146125 = queryNorm
            0.42611307 = fieldWeight in 5813, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.4533744 = idf(docFreq=1398, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5813)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Main path analysis is a famous network-based method for understanding the evolution of a scientific domain. Most existing methods have two steps, weighting citation arcs based on search path counting and exploring main paths in a greedy fashion, with the assumption that citation networks are acyclic. The only available proposal that avoids manual cycle removal is to preprint transform a cyclic network to an acyclic counterpart. Through a detailed discussion about the issues concerning this approach, especially deriving the "de-preprinted" main paths for the original network, this article proposes an alternative solution with two-fold contributions. Based on the argument that a publication cannot influence itself through a citation cycle, the SimSPC algorithm is proposed to weight citation arcs by counting simple search paths. A set of algorithms are further proposed for main path exploration and extraction directly from cyclic networks based on a novel data structure main path tree. The experiments on two cyclic citation networks demonstrate the usefulness of the alternative solution. In the meanwhile, experiments show that publications in strongly connected components may sit on the turning points of main path networks, which signifies the necessity of a systematic way of dealing with citation cycles.