The document summarizes the creation of three new domain-specific test collections for evaluating expert search systems in the domains of information retrieval, semantic web, and computational linguistics. The collections were created using workshop program committees and publications from relevant conferences and journals to represent experts, documents, and topics. The collections were then benchmarked using state-of-the-art expert search approaches, finding that term extraction methods outperformed language modeling on these domain-centered collections. Future work is discussed to expand the collections and incorporate additional evidence like citations.
Apidays New York 2024 - Passkeys: Developing APIs to enable passwordless auth...
Benchmarking Domain-specific Expert Search using Workshop Program Committees
1. Benchmarking Domain-Specific Expert Search
Using Workshop Program Committees
Georgeta Bordea1, Toine Bogers2 & Paul Buitelaar1
1 Digital
Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland
2
Royal School of Library & Information Science
University of Copenhagen
CSTA workshop @ CIKM 2013
October 28, 2013
2. Outline
• Introduction
• Domain-specific test collections for expert search
- Information retrieval
- Semantic web
- Computational linguistics
• Benchmarking our new collections
- Expert finding
- Expert profiling
• Discussion & conclusions
2
3. Introduction
• Knowledge workers spend around 25% of their time searching for
information
- 99% report using other people as information sources
- 14.4% of their time is spent on this (56% depending on your definition)
- Why do people search for other people? (Hertzum & Pejtersen, 2005)
‣ Search documents to find relevant people
‣ Search people to find relevant documents
• Expert search engines support this need for people search
- Searching for people instead of documents
3
5. Related work
• Historical solution (80s and 90s)
- Manually constructing a database of people’s expertise
• Automatic approaches to expert search since 2000s
- Automatically retrieve expertise evidence and associate this with experts
- Expert finding (“Who is the expert on topic X?”)
‣ Find the experts on a specific topic
- Expert profiling (“What is the expertise of person Y?”)
‣ Find out what one expert knows about different topics
5
6. Related work
• TREC Enterprise track (2005-2008)
- Focused on enterprise search → searching the data of an organization
- W3C collection (2005-2006)
- CSIRO collection (2007-2008)
• UvT Expert Collection (2007, updated in 2012)
- University-wide crawl of expertise evidence
‣ Publications, course descriptions, research descriptions, personal home pages
- Topics & relevance (self-)assessments from manual expertise database
6
7. Related work
W3C
# people
# documents
# topics
CSIRO
UvT
1,092
3,490
496
331,037
370,715
36,699
99
50
981
• Problems with these data sets
- Relevance assessments
‣ W3C → Assessment by people outside organization inaccurate and incomplete
‣ CSIRO → Assessment by co-workers biased towards social network
‣ UvT → Self-assessment by experts is subjective and incomplete
- Focus on a single organization → relatively few experts per expertise area
7
8. Solution: Domain-specific test collections
• Documents
- Where? Collect publications from relevant journals and conferences in a
specific domain
- Why? More challenging because of lower level of granularity
• Topics
- Where? Collect topics descriptions from conference workshop websites
- Why? Rich descriptions with explicitly identified sub-topics (“areas of interest”)
• Relevance assessments
- Where? Program committees listed on workshop websites
- Why? Combines peer judgments with self-assessment
8
9. Collection 1: Information retrieval (IR)
• Research domain(s)
• Research domain(s):
- digital
- Information retrieval,Inform libraries, and recommender systems
• Topics
• Topics
- Workshops with substantial portion
- Workshops held at conferences held at conferences withdedicated to these
substantial portion dedicated to
domains between 2001 and 2012
‣ CIKM
‣ IIiX
‣ SIGIR
‣ RecSys
‣ ECIR
‣ ECDL
‣ WWW
‣ JCDL
‣ WSDM
‣ TPDL
9
10. Collection 1: Information retrieval (IR)
• Documents
- Based on DBLP Computer Science Bibliography
‣ Good coverage of research domains
‣ ArnetMiner version available with (automatically extracted) citation information
- Selected publications from all relevant IR venues
‣ Core venues → Hosting conferences for selected IR workshops (~9,000 docs)
‣ Curated venues → Additional venues with substantial IR coverage (~16,000 docs)
‣ Venue has to have at least 5 publications in ArnetMiner DBLP data set
‣ Resulted in ~25,000 publications
- Collected full-text versions using Google Scholar for 54.1% of publications
10
11. Collection 2: Semantic Web (SW)
• Research domain(s)
- Semantic Web
• Topics
- Workshops held at conferences in the Semantic Web Dog Food data set
‣ ISWC
‣ WWW
‣ EKAW
‣ ASWC
‣ ESWC
‣ I-Semantics
• Documents
- Based on Semantic Web Dog Food corpus (SPARQL public endpoint)
- Full-text PDF versions available for all publications
11
12. Collection 3: Computational linguistics (CL)
• Research domain(s)
- Computational linguistics, natural language processing
• Topics
- Workshops held at conferences in the ACL Anthology Reference Corpus
‣ ACL
‣ SemEval
‣ CoLing
‣ NAACL
‣ ANLP
‣ HLT
‣ EACL
‣ EMNLP
‣ LREC
• Documents
- Based on ACL Anthology Reference Corpus
- Full-text PDF versions available for all publications
12
13. Topics & relevance assessments
• Topic representations
- Title
- Long description (complete workshop description)
- Short description (teaser description, typically first paragraph)
- Areas of interest
13
14. <topic id="014">
(IRiX)</title>
tle>Workshop on Information Retrieval in Context
<ti
<year>2004</year>
<website>http://ir.dcs.gla.ac.uk/context/</website>
iety of theoretical
<short_description>This workshop will explore a var
eractive IR research.</
orks, characteristics and approaches to future int
framew
short_description>
nt information
cription>There is a growing realisation that releva
<long_des
ong_description>
[...] for future interactive IR (IIR) research.</l
<areas_of_interest>
a>
<area>Contextual IR theory - modeling context</are
[...]
</areas_of_interest>
<organizers>
<name>Peter Ingwersen</name>
[...]
</organizers>
<program_committee>
<name>Pia Borlund</name>
[...]
</program_committee>
</topic>
14
15. Topics & relevance assessments
• Topic representations
- Title
- Long description (complete workshop description)
- Short description (teaser description, typically first paragraph)
- Areas of interest
- Manually annotated topics with fine-grained expertise topics
• Relevance assessments
- PC members and organizers typically have expertise in one or more areas of
interest → combination of peer judgments and self-assessment
- Relevance value of ‘2’ for organizers and ‘1’ for PC members
15
17. Benchmarking the collections
• Benchmark results on our collections using state-of-the-art
approaches on two tasks
- Profile-centric model (M1, “Model 1”) — expert finding, expert profiling
‣ Aggregate all content for an expert into a document representation and produce ranking
- Document-centric model (M2, “Model 2”) — expert finding, expert profiling
‣ Retrieve relevant documents, then associate with experts and produce ranking
- Saffron (Bordea et al., 2012)
‣ Automatically extracts expertise terms from text, ranks them by term frequency, length,
and ‘embeddedness’, associates documents and experts with these terms
‣ Topic-centric extraction (TC) — expert finding, expert profiling
‣ Document-count ranking (DC) — expert finding
17
20. Discussion & conclusions
• Contributions
- Three new domain-specific test collections for expert search
‣ Available at http://itlab.dbit.dk/~toine/?page_id=631
- Workshop websites for topic creation & relevance assessment
- Benchmarked performance for expert finding and expert profiling
• Findings
- Term extraction approaches outperform language modeling on domaincentered collections (as opposed to organization-centric collections)
• Caveats
- Incomplete assessments & social selection bias for PC members?
20
21. Future work
• Expansion
- Add additional domains
‣ Need an active workshop scene & access to documents
- Add additional topics to existing collections
‣ IR collection has 100+ workshops that need manual cleaning
‣ Conference tutorials could also be added (but very incomplete relevance assessments!)
• Drilling down
- Incorporate social evidence in the form of citation networks
- Investigate the temporal aspect (topic drift?)
21
