Two-layer classification and distinguished representations of users and documents for grouping and authorship identification

Most studies on authorship identification reported a drop in the identification result when the number of authors exceeds 20-25. In this paper, we introduce a new user representation to address this problem and split classification across two layers. There are at least 3 novelties in this paper. First, the two-layer approach allows applying authorship identification over larger number of authors (tested over 100 authors), and it is extendable. The authors are divided into groups that contain smaller number of authors. Given an anonymous document, the primary layer detects the group to which the document belongs. Then, the secondary layer determines the particular author inside the selected group. In order to extract the groups linking similar authors, clustering is applied over users rather than documents. Hence, the second novelty of this paper is introducing a new user representation that is different from document representation. Without the proposed user representation, the clustering over documents will result in documents of author(s) distributed over several clusters, instead of a single cluster membership for each author. Third, the extracted clusters are descriptive and meaningful of their users as the dimensions have psychological backgrounds. For authorship identification, the documents are labelled with the extracted groups and fed into machine learning to build classification models that predicts the group and author of a given document. The results show that the documents are highly correlated with the extracted corresponding groups, and the proposed model can be accurately trained to determine the group and the author identity

Follow-up question handling in the IMIX and Ritel systems: A comparative study

One of the basic topics of question answering (QA) dialogue systems is how follow-up questions should be interpreted by a QA system. In this paper, we shall discuss our experience with the IMIX and Ritel systems, for both of which a follow-up question handling scheme has been developed, and corpora have been collected. These two systems are each other's opposites in many respects: IMIX is multimodal, non-factoid, black-box QA, while Ritel is speech, factoid, keyword-based QA. Nevertheless, we will show that they are quite comparable, and that it is fruitful to examine the similarities and differences. We shall look at how the systems are composed, and how real, non-expert, users interact with the systems. We shall also provide comparisons with systems from the literature where possible, and indicate where open issues lie and in what areas existing systems may be improved. We conclude that most systems have a common architecture with a set of common subtasks, in particular detecting follow-up questions and finding referents for them. We characterise these tasks using the typical techniques used for performing them, and data from our corpora. We also identify a special type of follow-up question, the discourse question, which is asked when the user is trying to understand an answer, and propose some basic methods for handling it

CHORUS Deliverable 2.1: State of the Art on Multimedia Search Engines

Based on the information provided by European projects and national initiatives related to multimedia search as well as domains experts that participated in the CHORUS Think-thanks and workshops, this document reports on the state of the art related to multimedia content search from, a technical, and socio-economic perspective. The technical perspective includes an up to date view on content based indexing and retrieval technologies, multimedia search in the context of mobile devices and peer-to-peer networks, and an overview of current evaluation and benchmark inititiatives to measure the performance of multimedia search engines. From a socio-economic perspective we inventorize the impact and legal consequences of these technical advances and point out future directions of research