Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Sun, A."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Sun, A.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Nguyen, K.T.N.; Bai, G.: Tag-based social image retrieval : an empirical evaluation (2011) 0.01 
    0.011655438 = product of:
  0.023310876 = sum of:
    0.023310876 = product of:
      0.034966312 = sum of:
        0.031998128 = weight(_text_:k in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031998128 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16225883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = 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)
        0.0029681858 = weight(_text_:s in 4938) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029681858 = score(doc=4938,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4938, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4938)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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).
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.12, S.2364-2381
  2. Ma, Z.; Sun, A.; Cong, G.: On predicting the popularity of newly emerging hashtags in Twitter (2013) 0.01 
    0.011655438 = product of:
  0.023310876 = sum of:
    0.023310876 = product of:
      0.034966312 = sum of:
        0.031998128 = weight(_text_:k in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031998128 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16225883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 967, 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=967)
        0.0029681858 = weight(_text_:s in 967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029681858 = score(doc=967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=967)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Because of Twitter's popularity and the viral nature of information dissemination on Twitter, predicting which Twitter topics will become popular in the near future becomes a task of considerable economic importance. Many Twitter topics are annotated by hashtags. In this article, we propose methods to predict the popularity of new hashtags on Twitter by formulating the problem as a classification task. We use five standard classification models (i.e., Naïve bayes, k-nearest neighbors, decision trees, support vector machines, and logistic regression) for prediction. The main challenge is the identification of effective features for describing new hashtags. We extract 7 content features from a hashtag string and the collection of tweets containing the hashtag and 11 contextual features from the social graph formed by users who have adopted the hashtag. We conducted experiments on a Twitter data set consisting of 31 million tweets from 2 million Singapore-based users. The experimental results show that the standard classifiers using the extracted features significantly outperform the baseline methods that do not use these features. Among the five classifiers, the logistic regression model performs the best in terms of the Micro-F1 measure. We also observe that contextual features are more effective than content features.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.7, S.1399-1410
  3. Sedhai, S.; Sun, A.: ¬An analysis of 14 Million tweets on hashtag-oriented spamming* (2017) 0.00 
    6.996081E-4 = product of:
  0.0013992162 = sum of:
    0.0013992162 = product of:
      0.0041976487 = sum of:
        0.0041976487 = weight(_text_:s in 3683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0041976487 = score(doc=3683,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 3683, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3683)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.7, S.1638-1651
  4. Li, J.; Sun, A.; Xing, Z.: To do or not to do : distill crowdsourced negative caveats to augment api documentation (2018) 0.00 
    5.936372E-4 = product of:
  0.0011872743 = sum of:
    0.0011872743 = product of:
      0.003561823 = sum of:
        0.003561823 = weight(_text_:s in 4575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003561823 = score(doc=4575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4575)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.12, S.1460-1475
  5. Zheng, X.; Sun, A.: Collecting event-related tweets from twitter stream (2019) 0.00 
    5.936372E-4 = product of:
  0.0011872743 = sum of:
    0.0011872743 = product of:
      0.003561823 = sum of:
        0.003561823 = weight(_text_:s in 4672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.003561823 = score(doc=4672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4672)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.176-186
  6. Li, H.; Bhowmick, S.S.; Sun, A.: AffRank: affinity-driven ranking of products in online social rating networks (2011) 0.00 
    4.9469766E-4 = product of:
  9.893953E-4 = sum of:
    9.893953E-4 = product of:
      0.0029681858 = sum of:
        0.0029681858 = weight(_text_:s in 4483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029681858 = score(doc=4483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 4483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4483)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1345-1359
  7. Qu, B.; Cong, G.; Li, C.; Sun, A.; Chen, H.: ¬An evaluation of classification models for question topic categorization (2012) 0.00 
    4.9469766E-4 = product of:
  9.893953E-4 = sum of:
    9.893953E-4 = product of:
      0.0029681858 = sum of:
        0.0029681858 = weight(_text_:s in 237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029681858 = score(doc=237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=237)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.5, S.889-903
  8. Li, C.; Sun, A.; Datta, A.: TSDW: Two-stage word sense disambiguation using Wikipedia (2013) 0.00 
    4.9469766E-4 = product of:
  9.893953E-4 = sum of:
    9.893953E-4 = product of:
      0.0029681858 = sum of:
        0.0029681858 = weight(_text_:s in 956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0029681858 = score(doc=956,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 956, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=956)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1203-1223
  9. Li, C.; Sun, A.: Extracting fine-grained location with temporal awareness in tweets : a two-stage approach (2017) 0.00 
    3.9575814E-4 = product of:
  7.915163E-4 = sum of:
    7.915163E-4 = product of:
      0.0023745487 = sum of:
        0.0023745487 = weight(_text_:s in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0023745487 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.049418733 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04545348 = queryNorm
            0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.7, S.1652-1670

Authors

Themes