This is an internal, incomplete preview of a proposed change to the ACL Anthology.
For efficiency reasons, we generate only three BibTeX files per volume, and the preview may be incomplete in other ways, or contain mistakes.
Do not treat this content as an official publication.
The relatedness of research articles, patents, court rulings, web pages, and other document types is often calculated with citation or hyperlink-based approaches like co-citation (proximity) analysis. The main limitation of citation-based approaches is that they cannot be used for documents that receive little or no citations. We propose Virtual Citation Proximity (VCP), a Siamese Neural Network architecture, which combines the advantages of co-citation proximity analysis (diverse notions of relatedness / high recommendation performance), with the advantage of content-based filtering (high coverage). VCP is trained on a corpus of documents with textual features, and with real citation proximity as ground truth. VCP then predicts for any two documents, based on their title and abstract, in what proximity the two documents would be co-cited, if they were indeed co-cited. The prediction can be used in the same way as real citation proximity to calculate document relatedness, even for uncited documents. In our evaluation with 2 million co-citations from Wikipedia articles, VCP achieves an MAE of 0.0055, i.e. an improvement of 20% over the baseline, though the learning curve suggests that more work is needed.
Citation parsing, particularly with deep neural networks, suffers from a lack of training data as available datasets typically contain only a few thousand training instances. Manually labelling citation strings is very time-consuming, hence synthetically created training data could be a solution. However, as of now, it is unknown if synthetically created reference-strings are suitable to train machine learning algorithms for citation parsing. To find out, we train Grobid, which uses Conditional Random Fields, with a) human-labelled reference strings from ‘real’ bibliographies and b) synthetically created reference strings from the GIANT dataset. We find that both synthetic and organic reference strings are equally suited for training Grobid (F1 = 0.74). We additionally find that retraining Grobid has a notable impact on its performance, for both synthetic and real data (+30% in F1). Having as many types of labelled fields as possible during training also improves effectiveness, even if these fields are not available in the evaluation data (+13.5% F1). We conclude that synthetic data is suitable for training (deep) citation parsing models. We further suggest that in future evaluations of reference parsers both evaluation data similar and dissimilar to the training data should be used for more meaningful evaluations.
Effectiveness of a recommendation in an Information Retrieval (IR) system is determined by relevancy scores of retrieved results. Term weighting is responsible for computing the relevance scores and consequently differentiating between the terms in a document. However, the current term weighting formula (TF-IDF, for instance), weighs terms only based on term frequency and inverse document frequency irrespective of other important factors. This results in ambiguity in cases when both TF and IDF values the same for more than one document, hence resulting in same TF-IDF values. In this paper, we propose a modification of TF-IDF and other term-weighting schemes that weighs the terms based on the recency and the usage in the corpus. We have tested the performance of our algorithm with existing term weighting schemes; TF-IDF, BM25 and USE text embedding model. We have indexed three different datasets with different domains to validate the premises for our algorithm. On evaluating the algorithms using Precision, Recall, F1 score, and NDCG, we found that time normalized TF-IDF outperformed the classic TF-IDF with a significant difference in all the metrics and datasets. Time-based USE model performed better than the standard USE model in two out of three datasets. But the time-based BM25 model did not perform well in some of the input queries as compared to standard BM25 model.