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

Stefan Savev

dblp:69/294 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 5 · 1 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1

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
3 papers
Information retrieval · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Programming languages and type systems · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval › ranking
learning to rank
0.222011
A large-scale study of the effect of training set characteristics over learning-to-rank algorithms · SIGIR 2011
Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank · SIGIR 2009
Information retrieval › document retrieval › set retrieval
document selection
0.112009
Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank · SIGIR 2009
Information retrieval
ranking
0.112009
Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank · SIGIR 2009
Information retrieval
retrieval evaluation
0.112009
Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank · SIGIR 2009
Information retrieval
retrieval models
0.112009
Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank · SIGIR 2009
Information retrieval
search engines
0.112009
A search engine in a few lines.: yes, we can! · SIGIR 2009
Information retrieval › evaluation › test collection
test collection construction
0.112009
Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank · SIGIR 2009
Programming languages and type systems
functional programming
0.012009
A search engine in a few lines.: yes, we can! · SIGIR 2009

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

functional programming · 0.2f# · 0.2learning to rank algorithms · 0.1learning to rank · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 A large-scale study of the effect of training set characteristics over learning-to-rank algorithms
abstract
In this work we describe the results of a large-scale study on the effect of the distribution of labels across the different grades of relevance in the training set on the performance of trained ranking functions. In a controlled experiment we generate a large number of training datasets wih different label distributions and employ three learning to rank algo- rithms over these datasets. We investigate the effect of these distributions on the accuracy of obtained ranking functions to give an insight into the manner training sets should be constructed.
Evangelos Kanoulas, Stefan Savev, Pavel Metrikov, Virgil Pavlu, Javed A. Aslam
SIGIR2
2009 Document selection methodologies for efficient and effective learning-to-rank
abstract
Learning-to-rank has attracted great attention in the IR community. Much thought and research has been placed on query-document feature extraction and development of sophisticated learning-to-rank algorithms. However, relatively little research has been conducted on selecting documents for learning-to-rank data sets nor on the effect of these choices on the efficiency and effectiveness of learning-to-rank algorithms.
Javed A. Aslam, Evangelos Kanoulas, Virgil Pavlu, Stefan Savev, Emine Yilmaz
SIGIR4
2009 A search engine in a few lines.: yes, we can!
abstract
Many research implementations of search engines are written in C, C++, or Java. They are difficult to understand and modify because they are at least a few thousand lines of code and contain many low-level details. In this paper, we show how to achieve a much shorter and higher level implementation: one in about a few hundred lines. We accomplish this result through the use of a high-level functional programming language, F#, and some of its features such as sequences, pipes and structured input and output. By using a search engine implementation as a case study, we argue that functional programming fits the domain of Information Retrieval problems much better than imperative/OO languages like C++ and Java. Functional programming languages are ideal for rapid algorithm prototyping and data exploration in the field of Information Retrieval (IR). Additionally, our implementation can be used as case study in an IR course since it is a very high level, but nevertheless executable specification of a search engine.
Stefan Savev
SIGIR1
2009 Implementing and evaluating phrasal query suggestions for proximity search
Alan Feuer, Stefan Savev, Javed A. Aslam
Inf. Syst.2
2007 Evaluation of phrasal query suggestions
abstract
This paper evaluates the uptake and efficacy of a unified approach to phrasal query suggestions in the context of a high-precision search engine. The search engine performs ranked extended-Boolean searches with the proximity operator NEAR being the default operation. Suggestions are offered to the searcher when the length of the result list falls outside predefined bounds. If the list is too long, the engine suggests narrowing the query through the use of super phrases; if the list is too short, the engine suggests broadening the query through the use of proximal subphrases.
Alan Feuer, Stefan Savev, Javed A. Aslam
CIKM2