Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Carmen Heger
dblp:143/6968
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial 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.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Machine translation · 100% | |
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Information retrieval · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Machine translation › neural machine translation
character-level translation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine Translation · EMNLP 2015 |
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
statistical machine translation |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine Translation · EMNLP 2015 |
Information retrieval
query processing |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine Translation · EMNLP 2015 |
Information retrieval › query processing
query spelling correction |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine Translation · EMNLP 2015 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical machine translation · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine TranslationabstractWe use character-based statistical machine translation in order to correct user search queries in the e-commerce domain.The training data is automatically extracted from event logs where users re-issue their search queries with potentially corrected spelling within the same session.We show results on a test set which was annotated by humans and compare against online autocorrection capabilities of three additional web sites.Overall, the methods presented in this paper outperform fully productized spellchecking and autocorrection services in terms of accuracy and F1 score.We also propose novel evaluation steps based on retrieved search results of the corrected queries in terms of quantity and relevance. Sasa Hasan, Carmen Heger, Saab Mansour |
EMNLP | 2 |