Learning to Rank Academic Experts in the DBLP Dataset

Expert finding is an information retrieval task that is concerned with the search for the most knowledgeable people with respect to a specific topic, and the search is based on documents that describe people's activities. The task involves taking a user query as input and returning a list of people who are sorted by their level of expertise with respect to the user query. Despite recent interest in the area, the current state-of-the-art techniques lack in principled approaches for optimally combining different sources of evidence. This article proposes two frameworks for combining multiple estimators of expertise. These estimators are derived from textual contents, from graph-structure of the citation patterns for the community of experts, and from profile information about the experts. More specifically, this article explores the use of supervised learning to rank methods, as well as rank aggregation approaches, for combing all of the estimators of expertise. Several supervised learning algorithms, which are representative of the pointwise, pairwise and listwise approaches, were tested, and various state-of-the-art data fusion techniques were also explored for the rank aggregation framework. Experiments that were performed on a dataset of academic publications from the Computer Science domain attest the adequacy of the proposed approaches.Comment: Expert Systems, 2013. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1302.041

Finding Academic Experts on a MultiSensor Approach using Shannon's Entropy

Expert finding is an information retrieval task concerned with the search for the most knowledgeable people, in some topic, with basis on documents describing peoples activities. The task involves taking a user query as input and returning a list of people sorted by their level of expertise regarding the user query. This paper introduces a novel approach for combining multiple estimators of expertise based on a multisensor data fusion framework together with the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and Shannon's entropy. More specifically, we defined three sensors which detect heterogeneous information derived from the textual contents, from the graph structure of the citation patterns for the community of experts, and from profile information about the academic experts. Given the evidences collected, each sensor may define different candidates as experts and consequently do not agree in a final ranking decision. To deal with these conflicts, we applied the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence combined with Shannon's Entropy formula to fuse this information and come up with a more accurate and reliable final ranking list. Experiments made over two datasets of academic publications from the Computer Science domain attest for the adequacy of the proposed approach over the traditional state of the art approaches. We also made experiments against representative supervised state of the art algorithms. Results revealed that the proposed method achieved a similar performance when compared to these supervised techniques, confirming the capabilities of the proposed framework

Regression and Learning to Rank Aggregation for User Engagement Evaluation

User engagement refers to the amount of interaction an instance (e.g., tweet, news, and forum post) achieves. Ranking the items in social media websites based on the amount of user participation in them, can be used in different applications, such as recommender systems. In this paper, we consider a tweet containing a rating for a movie as an instance and focus on ranking the instances of each user based on their engagement, i.e., the total number of retweets and favorites it will gain. For this task, we define several features which can be extracted from the meta-data of each tweet. The features are partitioned into three categories: user-based, movie-based, and tweet-based. We show that in order to obtain good results, features from all categories should be considered. We exploit regression and learning to rank methods to rank the tweets and propose to aggregate the results of regression and learning to rank methods to achieve better performance. We have run our experiments on an extended version of MovieTweeting dataset provided by ACM RecSys Challenge 2014. The results show that learning to rank approach outperforms most of the regression models and the combination can improve the performance significantly.Comment: In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Recommender Systems Challenge, RecSysChallenge '1

Methods for Ordinal Peer Grading

MOOCs have the potential to revolutionize higher education with their wide outreach and accessibility, but they require instructors to come up with scalable alternates to traditional student evaluation. Peer grading -- having students assess each other -- is a promising approach to tackling the problem of evaluation at scale, since the number of "graders" naturally scales with the number of students. However, students are not trained in grading, which means that one cannot expect the same level of grading skills as in traditional settings. Drawing on broad evidence that ordinal feedback is easier to provide and more reliable than cardinal feedback, it is therefore desirable to allow peer graders to make ordinal statements (e.g. "project X is better than project Y") and not require them to make cardinal statements (e.g. "project X is a B-"). Thus, in this paper we study the problem of automatically inferring student grades from ordinal peer feedback, as opposed to existing methods that require cardinal peer feedback. We formulate the ordinal peer grading problem as a type of rank aggregation problem, and explore several probabilistic models under which to estimate student grades and grader reliability. We study the applicability of these methods using peer grading data collected from a real class -- with instructor and TA grades as a baseline -- and demonstrate the efficacy of ordinal feedback techniques in comparison to existing cardinal peer grading methods. Finally, we compare these peer-grading techniques to traditional evaluation techniques.Comment: Submitted to KDD 201