27 research outputs found

    Mapping Computer Science Research: Trends, Influences, and Predictions

    Full text link
    This paper explores the current trending research areas in the field of Computer Science (CS) and investigates the factors contributing to their emergence. Leveraging a comprehensive dataset comprising papers, citations, and funding information, we employ advanced machine learning techniques, including Decision Tree and Logistic Regression models, to predict trending research areas. Our analysis reveals that the number of references cited in research papers (Reference Count) plays a pivotal role in determining trending research areas making reference counts the most relevant factor that drives trend in the CS field. Additionally, the influence of NSF grants and patents on trending topics has increased over time. The Logistic Regression model outperforms the Decision Tree model in predicting trends, exhibiting higher accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. By surpassing a random guess baseline, our data-driven approach demonstrates higher accuracy and efficacy in identifying trending research areas. The results offer valuable insights into the trending research areas, providing researchers and institutions with a data-driven foundation for decision-making and future research direction.Comment: 7 pages, 8 figures, 1 tabl

    PGB: A PubMed Graph Benchmark for Heterogeneous Network Representation Learning

    Full text link
    There has been a rapid growth in biomedical literature, yet capturing the heterogeneity of the bibliographic information of these articles remains relatively understudied. Although graph mining research via heterogeneous graph neural networks has taken center stage, it remains unclear whether these approaches capture the heterogeneity of the PubMed database, a vast digital repository containing over 33 million articles. We introduce PubMed Graph Benchmark (PGB), a new benchmark dataset for evaluating heterogeneous graph embeddings for biomedical literature. PGB is one of the largest heterogeneous networks to date and consists of 30 million English articles. The benchmark contains rich metadata including abstract, authors, citations, MeSH terms, MeSH hierarchy, and some other information. The benchmark contains three different evaluation tasks encompassing systematic reviews, node classification, and node clustering. In PGB, we aggregate the metadata associated with the biomedical articles from PubMed into a unified source and make the benchmark publicly available for any future works

    The coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the publication output of a university

    Full text link
    This is the first detailed study on the coverage of Microsoft Academic (MA). Based on the complete and verified publication list of a university, the coverage of MA was assessed and compared with two benchmark databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), on the level of individual publications. Citation counts were analyzed, and issues related to data retrieval and data quality were examined. A Perl script was written to retrieve metadata from MA based on publication titles. The script is freely available on GitHub. We find that MA covers journal articles, working papers, and conference items to a substantial extent and indexes more document types than the benchmark databases (e.g., working papers, dissertations). MA clearly surpasses Scopus and WoS in covering book-related document types and conference items but falls slightly behind Scopus in journal articles. The coverage of MA is favorable for evaluative bibliometrics in most research fields, including economics/business, computer/information sciences, and mathematics. However, MA shows biases similar to Scopus and WoS with regard to the coverage of the humanities, non-English publications, and open-access publications. Rank correlations of citation counts are high between MA and the benchmark databases. We find that the publication year is correct for 89.5% of all publications and the number of authors is correct for 95.1% of the journal articles. Given the fast and ongoing development of MA, we conclude that MA is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower. However, comprehensive studies on the quality of MA metadata are still lacking

    Machine Learning for Actionable Warning Identification: A Comprehensive Survey

    Full text link
    Actionable Warning Identification (AWI) plays a crucial role in improving the usability of static code analyzers. With recent advances in Machine Learning (ML), various approaches have been proposed to incorporate ML techniques into AWI. These ML-based AWI approaches, benefiting from ML's strong ability to learn subtle and previously unseen patterns from historical data, have demonstrated superior performance. However, a comprehensive overview of these approaches is missing, which could hinder researchers/practitioners from understanding the current process and discovering potential for future improvement in the ML-based AWI community. In this paper, we systematically review the state-of-the-art ML-based AWI approaches. First, we employ a meticulous survey methodology and gather 50 primary studies from 2000/01/01 to 2023/09/01. Then, we outline the typical ML-based AWI workflow, including warning dataset preparation, preprocessing, AWI model construction, and evaluation stages. In such a workflow, we categorize ML-based AWI approaches based on the warning output format. Besides, we analyze the techniques used in each stage, along with their strengths, weaknesses, and distribution. Finally, we provide practical research directions for future ML-based AWI approaches, focusing on aspects like data improvement (e.g., enhancing the warning labeling strategy) and model exploration (e.g., exploring large language models for AWI)
    corecore