Comparison of Techniques for Measuring Research Coverage of Scientific Papers: A Case Study
1. COMPARISON OF TECHNIQUES FOR
MEASURING RESEARCH COVERAGE OF
SCIENTIFIC PAPERS: A CASE STUDY
Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar, Schubert Foo & Natalie Pang
Wee Kim Wee School of Communcation and Information
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Presentation for ICDIM’15
October 21 2015
2. What are we concerned about?
“What is the best technique for measuring research coverage of scientific papers in
order to build initital reading lists for literature review?”
Why is this needed? => To help rookie researchers
=> To help researchers venturing into new resesearch areas
What type of papers? => Papers that provide a good overview and lead to other
important papers
Relative Importance of papers based on? => Diversity
=> Recency
=> Survey papers
=> Popularity
Recommendation Task
3. RELATED WORK
Traditional methods for ranking research papers
• Citation Count => Leads to Matthew Effect [1]
• Search Keywords Matching => Just a simple search
Graph Ranking Techniques
• PageRank [2]
• HITS [3]
• Customized Random Walk with Restart [8]
• Hybrid versions (incl. textual [4] and temporal data [5])
4. RELATED WORK
Recommender System Techniques
• Generic Collaborative Filtering [6]
• Collaborative Filtering with HITS, PageRank and SALSA [7]
So What’s Missing?
• Computation based mainly on shared co-citations and co-references
• Not applicable for interdisciplinary topics
• Emphasis only on paper seminality and popularity
5. STATE-OF-THE-ART TECHNIQUE
HITS Approach
• Computation based on in-links and out-links of graph nodes
• Provides better results than PageRank [7]
Where has HITS been used?
• Generic digital library context
Supervised HITS with important documents as training set [9]
• Scientific paper recommender systems context
Precomputed hub score applied as normalized unit vector over
collaborative filtering [7]
Representation of HITS in Current Domain
• Hub node cites other papers
• Authority node is cited by other papers
6. PROPOSED NEW TECHNIQUES
1. Topical and Peripheral Coverage (TPC)
2. Topical Coverage (TC)
Key Differentiating Factor
• Usage of Author-specified keywords (AsK) metadata in research
papers
Authors by right have to include keywords in papers
Direct reference to the key themes represented in the research
paper
Applicability in identifying interdisciplinary papers
Availability of both narrow and broad topics
7. TOPICAL AND PERIPHERAL COVERAGE
(TPC)
Key Differentiator
• Usage of all keywords provided in the research paper
Measurement Steps
1. Identify the keywords K provided for a paper Pi
2. Extract all the papers in the corpus which have the keywords in K. The
extracted set of papers becomes the base set Pk
3. Extract the references list reflisti and citations list citelisti of Pi
4. Coverage score is measured by counting the number of papers from
reflisti and citelisti that are present in Pk
5. Altenatively, score can be also calculated as ratio score by dividing the
combined count of reflisti and citelisti by count of papers in Pk
8. TOPICAL COVERAGE (TC)
Key Differentiator
• Usage of specific keyword(s) (pertaining to a research topic) provided in the
research paper
Measurement Steps
1. Identify a research topic T
2. Extract all the papers in the corpus which have the keyword T. The extracted
set of papers becomes the base set PT
3. Extract the references list reflisti and citations list citelisti of Pi which have T
as keyword
4. Coverage score is measured by counting the number of papers from reflisti
and citelisti that are present in PT
5. Altenatively, score can be also calculated as ratio score by dividing the
combined count of reflist and citelist by count of papers in PT
10. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH
COVERAGE
Why are criteria needed?
• For usage in the recommendation task ‘building a reading list of
research papers for literature review’
• Expectations on the reading list might vary as per the experience level
of the researcher
• Four Criteria for measuring inclusivity extent of:
Diverse papers
Literature Survey/Review papers
Popular papers
Recent papers
11. INCLUSIVITY CRITERIA
Diverse Papers Inclusivity
• Rationale: A reading list is supposed to contain papers that cover most
sub-topics of the main research topic
• Diversity calculation based on number of interconnections (edges)
between nodes in the sub-graph (recommendation list of papers)
• G(V,E) -> graph built with references and citations of papers about a
particular topic
• G1(V1,E1) -> subgraph built with just the recommended papers from
the coverage measurement technique
• Number of edges E1 is an indication of level of diversity in the
recommended papers
More edges => less diversity
Less edges => more diversity
12. INCLUSIVITY CRITERIA
Survey Papers Inclusivity
• Rationale: Literature survey/review papers provide an overview of the
existing research performed in the particular research area
• Measured by counting the number of survey papers in the final
recommendation list
Popular Papers Inclusivity
• Rationale: Popular papers have seminal status in the particular
research area
• These papers have high coverage since they lead to many other papers
by following citations
• Measured by counting the number of papers in the final recommendation
list above the citation count threshold
13. INCLUSIVITY CRITERIA
Recent Papers Inclusivity
• Rationale: Recent papers that cite many other important papers should
also be considered as papers with decent level of coverage
• Measured by counting the number of papers in the final recommendation
list above the threshold value
E.g. Papers published in the recent two years
14. EXPERIMENT DETAILS
• Corpus: Extract of papers from ACM DL
• Period: published between 1951 and 2010
• Topic for study: Information Retrieval
• Papers count: 976 papers with 21,243 references and citations
• Software and tools used: JUNG java library, MySQL
• Citation count threshold: 50
• Recent papers threshold: published between 2008 and 2010
• Techniques compared: HITS (HC), TPC and TC
• Measurement: Top 20 papers were shortlisted for each technique based on the
corresponding scores
15. SAMPLE RESULTS
Rank Title (year)
References
Count
Citations
Count
1 Information retrieval on the semantic web (2002) 28 225
2 Methods and metrics for cold-start recommendations (2002) 31 1024
3 Stuff I've seen:a system for personal information retrieval and re-use (2003) 32 813
4 Designing a digital library for young children (2001) 20 156
5 Information retrieval on the web (2000) 231 735
6 A cluster-based resampling method for pseudo-relevance feedback (2008) 35 142
7
A case for interaction: a study of interactive information retrieval behavior and effectiveness
(1996) 13 398
8 Query dependent pseudo-relevance feedback based on wikipedia (2009) 34 135
9
Scatter/gather browsing communicates the topic structure of a very large text collection
(1996) 11 245
10 Answer Garden 2: merging organizational memory with collaborative help (1996) 25 399
11 Using information scent to model user information needs and actions and the Web (2001) 26 401
12 A knowledge-based search engine powered by wikipedia (2007) 21 153
13 Evaluation over thousands of queries (2008) 21 79
14 Sources of evidence for vertical selection (2009) 20 126
15
Interactive textbook and interactive Venn diagram: natural and intuitive interfaces on
augmented desk system (2000) 21 117
16 Categorizing web queries according to geographical locality (2003) 21 171
17 Automatic query generation for patent search (2009) 12 67
18 Probabilistic query expansion using query logs (2002) 18 415
19 Extending average precision to graded relevance judgments (2010) 27 51
20 Learning in a pairwise term-term proximity framework for information retrieval (2009) 19 47
16. RESULTS
Criteria Count HC TPC TC
No. of Edges in Subgraph (Diversity) 14 5 18
No. of Literature Survey Papers 6 1 3
No. of Papers with Citation Count above 100
9 16 16
No. of Recent Papers 3 7 5
Rank HC TPC TC
No. of Edges in Subgraph (Diversity) 2 1 3
No. of Literature Survey Papers 1 3 2
No. of Papers with Citation Count above 100
3 1 1
No. of Recent Papers 3 1 2
17. KEY FINDINGS
Diverse Papers Inclusivity
• TPC had the least number of edges (n=5) => More diverse set of papers
• Why?
Inclusion of non-IR papers in the list since the computations is
based on all keywords
• TC had the most number of edges (n=18) as most papers had shared
relationships since only IR keyword is considered
Survey Papers Inclusivity
• HC retrieved most papers (n=6) as its scoring logic gives priority to
papers with more connections
• TC (n=3) retrieved more papers than TPC (n=1) as its scope is related
to only topically-relevant papers
18. KEY FINDINGS
Popular Papers Inclusivity
• Both TPC and TC performed good (n=16) => Ideal for identifying key
seminal papers as these techniques aggregate both citations and
references
• HC retrieved less such papers (n=9) since it gave preference to papers
with high references count
Recent Papers Inclusivity
• TPC (n=7) had the most number of recent papers followed by TC (n=5)
and HC (n=3)
• Results need to be validated with more research topics as temporal
preferences were not explicitly factored in the conceptual model
19. CONCLUSION
Overall, Topical and Peripheral Coverage (TPC) technique provided
best results
Caters for inter-disciplinary topics
Identifies recent papers
Covers a wide array of sub-topics in the main research topic
Topical Coverage (TC) provides feasibility for implemention in the
task for finding similar papers
As a key to improve results for survey papers inclusivity, TPC and
HITS (HC) are to be combined
We got encouraging results in a subsequent study during offline
evaluation of our system
Results will be reported in a separate paper
20. CLOSING REMARKS
The integrated TPC and HC technique to be used for the task of building
initial reading list for literature review
We cordially invite to participate in the user evaluation experiment of the
Rec4LRW system, please provide your details by clicking the below link
URL: https://goo.gl/AuIasT
THANK YOU
Hinweis der Redaktion
[1] R. K. Merton, “The Matthew Effect in Science,” Science, vol. 159, no. 3810. pp. 56–63, 1968.
[2] L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwami, and T. Winograd, “The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web,” 1999.
[3] J. M. Kleinberg, “Hubs , Authorities , and Communities,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 31, no. 4, 1999.
[4] J. Jardine and S. Teufel, “Topical PageRank : A Model of Scientific Expertise for Bibliographic Search,” in Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014, pp. 501–510.
[5] A. P. Singh, K. Shubhankar, and V. Pudi, “An Efficient Algorithm for Ranking Research Papers Based on Citation Network,” in 2011 3rd Conference on Data Mining and Optimization (DMO), 2011, pp. 88–95.
[8] D.-H. Bae, S.-M. Hwang, S.-W. Kim, and C. Faloutsos, “On Constructing Seminal Paper Genealogy,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 54–65, Mar. 2014.
[6] S. M. Mcnee, Meeting User Information Needs in Recommender Systems. Proquest, 2006.
[7] M. D. Ekstrand, P. Kannan, J. a. Stemper, J. T. Butler, J. a. Konstan, and J. T. Riedl, “Automatically Building Research Reading Lists,” in Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems - RecSys ’10, 2010, p. 159.
[8] D.-H. Bae, S.-M. Hwang, S.-W. Kim, and C. Faloutsos, “On Constructing Seminal Paper Genealogy,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 54–65, Mar. 2014.
[8] Y. Liu and Y. Lin, “Supervised HITS algorithm for MEDLINE citation ranking,” in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering, BIBE, 2007, pp. 1323–1327.