Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Lorenz Heinemann

dblp:326/1876 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0009-0000-8200-5531ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021

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%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › retrieval evaluation
reproducibility study
0.712023
On Stance Detection in Image Retrieval for Argumentation · SIGIR 2023
Data mining › text mining › text classification
stance detection
0.712023
On Stance Detection in Image Retrieval for Argumentation · SIGIR 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

random baseline · 0.7error analysis · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 On Stance Detection in Image Retrieval for Argumentation
abstract
Given a text query on a controversial topic, the task of Image Retrieval for Argumentation is to rank images according to how well they can be used to support a discussion on the topic. An important subtask therein is to determine the stance of the retrieved images, i.e., whether an image supports the pro or con side of the topic. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive reproducibility study of the state of the art as represented by the CLEF'22 Touché lab and an in-house extension of it. Based on the submitted approaches, we developed a unified and modular retrieval process and reimplemented the submitted approaches according to this process. Through this unified reproduction (which also includes models not previously considered), we achieve an effectiveness improvement in argumentative image detection of up to 0.832 [email protected] However, despite this reproduction success, our study also revealed a previously unknown negative result: for stance detection, none of the reproduced or new approaches can convincingly beat a random baseline. To understand the apparent challenges inherent to image stance detection, we conduct a thorough error analysis and provide insight into potential new ways to approach this task.
Miriam Louise Carnot, Lorenz Heinemann, Jan Braker, Tobias Schreieder, Johannes Kiesel, Maik Fröbe, Martin Potthast, Benno Stein 0001
SIGIR2