Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04291142 = product of:
  0.12873426 = sum of:
    0.12873426 = weight(_text_:objects in 2494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12873426 = score(doc=2494,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.25313336 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047625583 = queryNorm
        0.508563 = fieldWeight in 2494, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2494)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Tag recommendation strategies that exploit term co-occurrence patterns with tags previously assigned to the target object have consistently produced state-of-the-art results. However, such techniques work only for objects with previously assigned tags. Here we focus on tag recommendation for objects with no tags, a variation of the well-known \textit{cold start} problem. We start by evaluating state-of-the-art co-occurrence based methods in cold start. Our results show that the effectiveness of these methods suffers in this situation. Moreover, we show that employing various automatic filtering strategies to generate an initial tag set that enables the use of co-occurrence patterns produces only marginal improvements. We then propose a new approach that exploits both positive and negative user feedback to iteratively select input tags along with a genetic programming strategy to learn the recommendation function. Our experimental results indicate that extending the methods to include user relevance feedback leads to gains in precision of up to 58% over the best baseline in cold start scenarios and gains of up to 43% over the best baseline in objects that contain some initial tags (i.e., no cold start). We also show that our best relevance-feedback-driven strategy performs well even in scenarios that lack user cooperation (i.e., users may refuse to provide feedback) and user reliability (i.e., users may provide the wrong feedback).

0.02405369 = product of:
  0.07216106 = sum of:
    0.07216106 = product of:
      0.14432213 = sum of:
        0.14432213 = weight(_text_:fusion in 3986) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14432213 = score(doc=3986,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35273543 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047625583 = queryNorm
            0.4091512 = fieldWeight in 3986, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.406428 = idf(docFreq=72, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3986)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Name ambiguity in the context of bibliographic citations is a difficult problem which, despite the many efforts from the research community, still has a lot of room for improvement. In this article, we present a heuristic-based hierarchical clustering method to deal with this problem. The method successively fuses clusters of citations of similar author names based on several heuristics and similarity measures on the components of the citations (e.g., coauthor names, work title, and publication venue title). During the disambiguation task, the information about fused clusters is aggregated providing more information for the next round of fusion. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we ran a series of experiments in two different collections extracted from real-world digital libraries and compared it, under two metrics, with four representative methods described in the literature. We present comparisons of results using each considered attribute separately (i.e., coauthor names, work title, and publication venue title) with the author name attribute and using all attributes together. These results show that our unsupervised method, when using all attributes, performs competitively against all other methods, under both metrics, loosing only in one case against a supervised method, whose result was very close to ours. Moreover, such results are achieved without the burden of any training and without using any privileged information such as knowing a priori the correct number of clusters.

0.0053771744 = product of:
  0.016131522 = sum of:
    0.016131522 = product of:
      0.032263044 = sum of:
        0.032263044 = weight(_text_:22 in 3343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032263044 = score(doc=3343,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16677667 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047625583 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3343, 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=3343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2017 13:04:22

0.0053771744 = product of:
  0.016131522 = sum of:
    0.016131522 = product of:
      0.032263044 = sum of:
        0.032263044 = weight(_text_:22 in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032263044 = score(doc=3524,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16677667 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047625583 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16.11.2017 13:30:22