Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

0.020117057 = product of:
  0.040234115 = sum of:
    0.040234115 = product of:
      0.06035117 = sum of:
        0.010754423 = weight(_text_:a in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010754423 = score(doc=1431,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
        0.049596746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049596746 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Properties of a percentile-based rating scale needed in bibliometrics are formulated. Based on these properties, P100 was recently introduced as a new citation-rank approach (Bornmann, Leydesdorff, & Wang, 2013). In this paper, we conceptualize P100 and propose an improvement which we call P100'. Advantages and disadvantages of citation-rank indicators are noted.

Date

22. 8.2014 17:05:18

Type

a

0.017117543 = product of:
  0.034235086 = sum of:
    0.034235086 = product of:
      0.051352628 = sum of:
        0.007514882 = weight(_text_:a in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007514882 = score(doc=2591,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
        0.043837745 = weight(_text_:22 in 2591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043837745 = score(doc=2591,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2591, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2591)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose In a system-based approach, replicating the web would require large test collections, and judging the relevancy of all documents per topic in creating relevance judgment through human assessors is infeasible. Due to the large amount of documents that requires judgment, there are possible errors introduced by human assessors because of disagreements. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This study explores exponential variation and document ranking methods that generate a reliable set of relevance judgments (pseudo relevance judgments) to reduce human efforts. These methods overcome problems with large amounts of documents for judgment while avoiding human disagreement errors during the judgment process. This study utilizes two key factors: number of occurrences of each document per topic from all the system runs; and document rankings to generate the alternate methods. Findings The effectiveness of the proposed method is evaluated using the correlation coefficient of ranked systems using mean average precision scores between the original Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) relevance judgments and pseudo relevance judgments. The results suggest that the proposed document ranking method with a pool depth of 100 could be a reliable alternative to reduce human effort and disagreement errors involved in generating TREC-like relevance judgments. Originality/value Simple methods proposed in this study show improvement in the correlation coefficient in generating alternate relevance judgment without human assessors while contributing to information retrieval evaluation.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22
18. 9.2018 18:22:56

Type

a

0.01517087 = product of:
  0.03034174 = sum of:
    0.03034174 = product of:
      0.04551261 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 1687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=1687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1687)
        0.037446793 = weight(_text_:h in 1687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037446793 = score(doc=1687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.32939452 = fieldWeight in 1687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1687)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.013875205 = product of:
  0.02775041 = sum of:
    0.02775041 = product of:
      0.041625615 = sum of:
        0.010627648 = weight(_text_:a in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010627648 = score(doc=664,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A new challenge, accessing multiple relevant entities, arises from the availability of linked heterogeneous data. In this article, we address more specifically the problem of accessing relevant entities, such as publications and authors within a bibliographic network, given an information need. We propose a novel algorithm, called BibRank, that estimates a joint relevance of documents and authors within a bibliographic network. This model ranks each type of entity using a score propagation algorithm with respect to the query topic and the structure of the underlying bi-type information entity network. Evidence sources, namely content-based and network-based scores, are both used to estimate the topical similarity between connected entities. For this purpose, authorship relationships are analyzed through a language model-based score on the one hand and on the other hand, non topically related entities of the same type are detected through marginal citations. The article reports the results of experiments using the Bibrank algorithm for an information retrieval task. The CiteSeerX bibliographic data set forms the basis for the topical query automatic generation and evaluation. We show that a statistically significant improvement over closely related ranking models is achieved.

Date

22. 3.2013 19:34:49

Type

a

0.012837617 = product of:
  0.025675233 = sum of:
    0.025675233 = product of:
      0.03851285 = sum of:
        0.007514882 = weight(_text_:a in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007514882 = score(doc=241,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
        0.030997967 = weight(_text_:22 in 241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030997967 = score(doc=241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16023713 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 241, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=241)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We address how individuals' (workers) knowledge needs influence the design of knowledge management systems (KMS), enabling knowledge creation and utilization. It is evident that KMS technologies and activities are indiscriminately deployed in most organizations with little regard to the actual context of their adoption. Moreover, it is apparent that the extant literature pertaining to knowledge management projects is frequently deficient in identifying the variety of factors indicative for successful KMS. This presents an obvious business practice and research gap that requires a critical analysis of the necessary intervention that will actually improve how workers can leverage and form organization-wide knowledge. This research involved an extensive review of the literature, a grounded theory methodological approach and rigorous data collection and synthesis through an empirical case analysis (Parsons Brinckerhoff and Samsung). The contribution of this study is the formulation of a model for designing KMS based upon the design science paradigm, which aspires to create artifacts that are interdependent of people and organizations. The essential proposition is that KMS design and implementation must be contextualized in relation to knowledge needs and that these will differ for various organizational settings. The findings present valuable insights and further understanding of the way in which KMS design efforts should be focused.

Date

11. 6.2012 14:22:34

Type

a

0.012642393 = product of:
  0.025284786 = sum of:
    0.025284786 = product of:
      0.037927177 = sum of:
        0.0067215143 = weight(_text_:a in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067215143 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
        0.031205663 = weight(_text_:h in 1694) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031205663 = score(doc=1694,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.27449545 = fieldWeight in 1694, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1694)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0115149 = product of:
  0.0230298 = sum of:
    0.0230298 = product of:
      0.0345447 = sum of:
        0.008065818 = weight(_text_:a in 4577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008065818 = score(doc=4577,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4577, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4577)
        0.026478881 = weight(_text_:h in 4577) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026478881 = score(doc=4577,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.2329171 = fieldWeight in 4577, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4577)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Image Ranking is one of the key problems in information science research area. However, most current methods focus on increasing the performance, leaving the semantic gap problem, which refers to the learned ranking models are hard to be understood, remaining intact. Therefore, in this article, we aim at learning an interpretable ranking model to tackle the semantic gap in fine-grained image ranking. We propose to combine attribute-based representation and online passive-aggressive (PA) learning based ranking models to achieve this goal. Besides, considering the highly localized instances in fine-grained image ranking, we introduce a supervised constrained clustering method to gather class-balanced training instances for local PA-based models, and incorporate the learned local models into a unified probabilistic framework. Extensive experiments on the benchmark demonstrate that the proposed framework outperforms state-of-the-art methods in terms of accuracy and speed.

Type

a

0.009797825 = product of:
  0.01959565 = sum of:
    0.01959565 = product of:
      0.029393472 = sum of:
        0.010670074 = weight(_text_:a in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010670074 = score(doc=4348,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
        0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 4348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018723397 = score(doc=4348,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 4348, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4348)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ranking authors is vital for identifying a researcher's impact and standing within a scientific field. There are many different ranking methods (e.g., citations, publications, h-index, PageRank, and weighted PageRank), but most of them are topic-independent. This paper proposes topic-dependent ranks based on the combination of a topic model and a weighted PageRank algorithm. The author-conference-topic (ACT) model was used to extract topic distribution of individual authors. Two ways for combining the ACT model with the PageRank algorithm are proposed: simple combination (I_PR) or using a topic distribution as a weighted vector for PageRank (PR_t). Information retrieval was chosen as the test field and representative authors for different topics at different time phases were identified. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to analyze the ranking difference between I_PR and PR_t.

Type

a

0.009247085 = product of:
  0.01849417 = sum of:
    0.01849417 = product of:
      0.027741255 = sum of:
        0.009017859 = weight(_text_:a in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009017859 = score(doc=1035,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
        0.018723397 = weight(_text_:h in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018723397 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.16469726 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

User interest as a very dynamic information need is often ignored in most existing information retrieval systems. In this research, we present the results of experiments designed to evaluate the performance of a real-time interest model (RIM) that attempts to identify the dynamic and changing query level interests regarding social media outputs. Unlike most existing ranking methods, our ranking approach targets calculation of the probability that user interest in the content of the document is subject to very dynamic user interest change. We describe 2 formulations of the model (real-time interest vector space and real-time interest language model) stemming from classical relevance ranking methods and develop a novel methodology for evaluating the performance of RIM using Amazon Mechanical Turk to collect (interest-based) relevance judgments on a daily basis. Our results show that the model usually, although not always, performs better than baseline results obtained from commercial web search engines. We identify factors that affect RIM performance and outline plans for future research.

Type

a

0.009081612 = product of:
  0.018163225 = sum of:
    0.018163225 = product of:
      0.027244836 = sum of:
        0.011642005 = weight(_text_:a in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011642005 = score(doc=4746,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 4746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=4746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 4746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4746)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Traditional ranking models for information retrieval lack the ability to make a clear distinction between relevant and nonrelevant documents at top ranks if both have similar bag-of-words representations with regard to a user query. We aim to go beyond the bag-of-words approach to document ranking in a new perspective, by representing each document as a sequence of sentences. We begin with an assumption that relevant documents are distinguishable from nonrelevant ones by sequential patterns of relevance degrees of sentences to a query. We introduce the notion of relevance flow, which refers to a stream of sentence-query relevance within a document. We then present a framework to learn a function for ranking documents effectively based on various features extracted from their relevance flows and leverage the output to enhance existing retrieval models. We validate the effectiveness of our approach by performing a number of retrieval experiments on three standard test collections, each comprising a different type of document: news articles, medical references, and blog posts. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach can improve the retrieval performance at the top ranks significantly as compared with the state-of-the-art retrieval models regardless of document type.

Type

a

0.008856562 = product of:
  0.017713124 = sum of:
    0.017713124 = product of:
      0.026569685 = sum of:
        0.008917097 = weight(_text_:a in 3296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008917097 = score(doc=3296,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.16900843 = fieldWeight in 3296, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3296)
        0.017652588 = weight(_text_:h in 3296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017652588 = score(doc=3296,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15527807 = fieldWeight in 3296, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3296)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Query translation in cross-language information retrieval (CLIR) can be done by employing dictionaries, aligned corpora, or machine translators. Scarcity of aligned corpora for various domains in many language pairs intensifies the importance of dictionary-based CLIR which motivates us to use only a bilingual dictionary and two independent collections in source and target languages for query translation. We exploit pseudo-relevant documents for a given query in the source language and pseudo-relevant documents for a translation of the query in the target language with a proposed expectation-maximization algorithm for improving query translation. The proposed method (called EM4QT) assumes that each target term either is translated from the source pseudo-relevant documents or has come from a noisy collection. Since EM4QT does not directly consider term coherency, which is defined as fluency of the target translation, we investigate a crucial question: can EM4QT be improved using either coherency-based methods or token-to-token translation ones? To address this question, we combine different translation models via simple linear interpolation and a proposed divergence minimization method. Evaluations over four CLEF collections in Persian, French, Spanish, and German indicate that EM4QT significantly outperforms competitive baselines in all the collections. Our experiments also reveal that since EM4QT indirectly considers term coherency, combining the method with coherency-based models cannot significantly improve the retrieval performance. On the other hand, investigating the query-by-query results supports the view that EM4QT usually gives a relatively high weight to one translation and its combination with the proposed token-to-token translation model, which is obtained by running EM4QT for each query term separately, soothes the effect and reaches better results for many queries. Comparing the method with a competitive word-embedding baseline reveals the superiority of the proposed model.

Type

a

0.008369497 = product of:
  0.016738994 = sum of:
    0.016738994 = product of:
      0.02510849 = sum of:
        0.0095056575 = weight(_text_:a in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0095056575 = score(doc=3017,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  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.

Type

a

0.007944992 = product of:
  0.015889984 = sum of:
    0.015889984 = product of:
      0.023834974 = sum of:
        0.008232141 = weight(_text_:a in 2714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008232141 = score(doc=2714,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2714, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2714)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 2714) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=2714,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2714, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2714)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Most existing search engines focus on document retrieval. However, information needs are certainly not limited to finding relevant documents. Instead, a user may want to find relevant entities such as persons and organizations. In this paper, we study the problem of related entity finding. Our goal is to rank entities based on their relevance to a structured query, which specifies an input entity, the type of related entities and the relation between the input and related entities. We first discuss a general probabilistic framework, derive six possible retrieval models to rank the related entities, and then compare these models both analytically and empirically. To further improve performance, we study the problem of feedback in the context of related entity finding. Specifically, we propose a mixture model based feedback method that can utilize the pseudo feedback entities to estimate an enriched model for the relation between the input and related entities. Experimental results over two standard TREC collections show that the derived relation generation model combined with a relation feedback method performs better than other models.

Type

a

0.0071412786 = product of:
  0.014282557 = sum of:
    0.014282557 = product of:
      0.021423835 = sum of:
        0.0058210026 = weight(_text_:a in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0058210026 = score(doc=2696,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Search Engines have become an integral part of our day to day life. Our reliance on search engines increases with every passing day. With the amount of data available on Internet increasing exponentially, it becomes important to develop new methods and tools that help to return results relevant to the queries and reduce the time spent on searching. The results should be diverse but at the same time should return results focused on the queries asked. Relation Based Page Rank [4] algorithms are considered to be the next frontier in improvement of Semantic Web Search. The probability of finding relevance in the search results as posited by the user while entering the query is used to measure the relevance. However, its application is limited by the complexity of determining relation between the terms and assigning explicit meaning to each term. Trust Rank is one of the most widely used ranking algorithms for semantic web search. Few other ranking algorithms like HITS algorithm, PageRank algorithm are also used for Semantic Web Searching. In this paper, we will provide a comparison of few ranking approaches.

Type

a

0.0067852205 = product of:
  0.013570441 = sum of:
    0.013570441 = product of:
      0.02035566 = sum of:
        0.0047528287 = weight(_text_:a in 1607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047528287 = score(doc=1607,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 1607, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1607)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 1607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=1607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 1607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1607)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Pseudorelevance feedback (PRF) was proposed to solve the limitation of relevance feedback (RF), which is based on the user-in-the-loop process. In PRF, the top-k retrieved images are regarded as PRF. Although the PRF set contains noise, PRF has proven effective for automatically improving the overall retrieval result. To implement PRF, the Rocchio algorithm has been considered as a reasonable and well-established baseline. However, the performance of Rocchio-based PRF is subject to various representation choices (or factors). In this article, we examine these factors that affect the performance of Rocchio-based PRF, including image-feature representation, the number of top-ranked images, the weighting parameters of Rocchio, and similarity measure. We offer practical insights on how to optimize the performance of Rocchio-based PRF by choosing appropriate representation choices. Our extensive experiments on NUS-WIDE-LITE and Caltech 101 + Corel 5000 data sets show that the optimal feature representation is color moment + wavelet texture in terms of retrieval efficiency and effectiveness. Other representation choices are that using top-20 ranked images as pseudopositive and pseudonegative feedback sets with the equal weight (i.e., 0.5) by the correlation and cosine distance functions can produce the optimal retrieval result.

Type

a

0.0067852205 = product of:
  0.013570441 = sum of:
    0.013570441 = product of:
      0.02035566 = sum of:
        0.0047528287 = weight(_text_:a in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047528287 = score(doc=2929,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
        0.015602832 = weight(_text_:h in 2929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015602832 = score(doc=2929,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13724773 = fieldWeight in 2929, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2929)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Pseudo relevance feedback, as an effective query expansion method, can significantly improve information retrieval performance. However, the method may negatively impact the retrieval performance when some irrelevant terms are used in the expanded query. Therefore, it is necessary to refine the expansion terms. Learning to rank methods have proven effective in information retrieval to solve ranking problems by ranking the most relevant documents at the top of the returned list, but few attempts have been made to employ learning to rank methods for term refinement in pseudo relevance feedback. This article proposes a novel framework to explore the feasibility of using learning to rank to optimize pseudo relevance feedback by means of reranking the candidate expansion terms. We investigate some learning approaches to choose the candidate terms and introduce some state-of-the-art learning to rank methods to refine the expansion terms. In addition, we propose two term labeling strategies and examine the usefulness of various term features to optimize the framework. Experimental results with three TREC collections show that our framework can effectively improve retrieval performance.

Type

a

0.0065318826 = product of:
  0.013063765 = sum of:
    0.013063765 = product of:
      0.019595647 = sum of:
        0.0071133827 = weight(_text_:a in 4459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071133827 = score(doc=4459,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 4459, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4459)
        0.012482265 = weight(_text_:h in 4459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012482265 = score(doc=4459,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.113683715 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.10979818 = fieldWeight in 4459, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4844491 = idf(docFreq=10020, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4459)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One of the main challenges in medical image retrieval is the increasing volume of image data, which render it difficult for domain experts to find relevant information from large data sets. Effective and efficient medical image retrieval systems are required to better manage medical image information. Text-based image retrieval (TBIR) was very successful in retrieving images with textual descriptions. Several TBIR approaches rely on models based on bag-of-words approaches, in which the image retrieval problem turns into one of standard text-based information retrieval; where the meanings and values of specific medical entities in the text and metadata are ignored in the image representation and retrieval process. However, we believe that TBIR should extract specific medical entities and terms and then exploit these elements to achieve better image retrieval results. Therefore, we propose a novel reranking method based on medical-image-dependent features. These features are manually selected by a medical expert from imaging modalities and medical terminology. First, we represent queries and images using only medical-image-dependent features such as image modality and image scale. Second, we exploit the defined features in a new reranking method for medical image retrieval. Our motivation is the large influence of image modality in medical image retrieval and its impact on image-relevance scores. To evaluate our approach, we performed a series of experiments on the medical ImageCLEF data sets from 2009 to 2013. The BM25 model, a language model, and an image-relevance feedback model are used as baselines to evaluate our approach. The experimental results show that compared to the BM25 model, the proposed model significantly enhances image retrieval performance. We also compared our approach with other state-of-the-art approaches and show that our approach performs comparably to those of the top three runs in the official ImageCLEF competition.

Type

a

0.002019564 = product of:
  0.004039128 = sum of:
    0.004039128 = product of:
      0.012117383 = sum of:
        0.012117383 = weight(_text_:a in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012117383 = score(doc=1184,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Learning to rank (L2R) algorithms use a labeled training set to generate a ranking model that can later be used to rank new query results. These training sets are costly and laborious to produce, requiring human annotators to assess the relevance or order of the documents in relation to a query. Active learning algorithms are able to reduce the labeling effort by selectively sampling an unlabeled set and choosing data instances that maximize a learning function's effectiveness. In this article, we propose a novel two-stage active learning method for L2R that combines and exploits interesting properties of its constituent parts, thus being effective and practical. In the first stage, an association rule active sampling algorithm is used to select a very small but effective initial training set. In the second stage, a query-by-committee strategy trained with the first-stage set is used to iteratively select more examples until a preset labeling budget is met or a target effectiveness is achieved. We test our method with various LETOR benchmarking data sets and compare it with several baselines to show that it achieves good results using only a small portion of the original training sets.

Type

a

0.0020164545 = product of:
  0.004032909 = sum of:
    0.004032909 = product of:
      0.012098727 = sum of:
        0.012098727 = weight(_text_:a in 3688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012098727 = score(doc=3688,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 3688, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3688)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Common measures of term importance in information retrieval (IR) rely on counts of term frequency; rare terms receive higher weight in document ranking than common terms receive. However, realistic scenarios yield additional information about terms in a collection. Of interest in this article is the temporal behavior of terms as a collection changes over time. We propose capturing each term's collection frequency at discrete time intervals over the lifespan of a corpus and analyzing the resulting time series. We hypothesize the collection frequency of a weakly discriminative term x at time t is predictable by a linear model of the term's prior observations. On the other hand, a linear time series model for a strong discriminators' collection frequency will yield a poor fit to the data. Operationalizing this hypothesis, we induce three time-based measures of term importance and test these against state-of-the-art term weighting models.

Type

a

0.0019403342 = product of:
  0.0038806684 = sum of:
    0.0038806684 = product of:
      0.011642005 = sum of:
        0.011642005 = weight(_text_:a in 4355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011642005 = score(doc=4355,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.052761257 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045758117 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 4355, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4355)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Result diversification is a retrieval strategy for dealing with ambiguous or multi-faceted queries by providing documents that cover as many facets of the query as possible. We propose a result diversification framework based on query-specific clustering and cluster ranking, in which diversification is restricted to documents belonging to clusters that potentially contain a high percentage of relevant documents. Empirical results show that the proposed framework improves the performance of several existing diversification methods. The framework also gives rise to a simple yet effective cluster-based approach to result diversification that selects documents from different clusters to be included in a ranked list in a round robin fashion. We describe a set of experiments aimed at thoroughly analyzing the behavior of the two main components of the proposed diversification framework, ranking and selecting clusters for diversification. Both components have a crucial impact on the overall performance of our framework, but ranking clusters plays a more important role than selecting clusters. We also examine properties that clusters should have in order for our diversification framework to be effective. Most relevant documents should be contained in a small number of high-quality clusters, while there should be no dominantly large clusters. Also, documents from these high-quality clusters should have a diverse content. These properties are strongly correlated with the overall performance of the proposed diversification framework.

Type

a