VLDB 2026 Research / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ekaterina Chernyak
dblp:147/6699
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Data mining · 50% Information retrieval · 50% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Data mining › predictive modeling › classification
multi-label classification |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | An Approach to the Problem of Annotation of Research Publications · WSDM 2015 |
Information retrieval › evaluation › effectiveness metrics
relevance measure |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | An Approach to the Problem of Annotation of Research Publications · WSDM 2015 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
suffix tree · 0.4TF-IDF · 0.4BM25 · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | Relation Extraction Datasets in the Digital Humanities Domain and Their Evaluation with Word Embeddings
Gerhard Wohlgenannt, Ekaterina Chernyak, Dmitry I. Ilvovsky, Ariadna Barinova, Dmitry Mouromtsev |
CICLing (1) | 2 |
| 2015 | An Approach to the Problem of Annotation of Research PublicationsabstractAn approach to multiple labelling research papers is explored. We develop techniques for annotating/labeling research papers in informatics and computer sciences with key phrases taken from the ACM Computing Classification System. The techniques utilize a phrase-to-text relevance measure so that only those phrases that are most relevant go to the annotation. Three phrase-to-text relevance measures are experimentally compared in this setting. The measures are: (a) cosine relevance score between conventional vector space representations of the texts coded with tf-idf weighting; (b) popular characteristic of probability of term generation BM25; and (c) an in-house characteristic of conditional probability of symbols averaged over matching fragments in suffix trees representing texts and phrases, CPAMF. In an experiment conducted over a set of texts published in journals of the ACM and manually annotated by their authors, CPAMF outperforms both the cosine measure and BM25 by a wide margin. Ekaterina Chernyak |
WSDM | 1 |