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

Carmen Heger

dblp:143/6968 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Machine translation › neural machine translation
character-level translation
0.212015
Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine Translation · EMNLP 2015
Natural language and speech › Machine translation
statistical machine translation
0.212015
Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine Translation · EMNLP 2015
Information retrieval
query processing
0.212015
Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine Translation · EMNLP 2015
Information retrieval › query processing
query spelling correction
0.212015
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Spelling Correction of User Search Queries through Statistical Machine Translation
abstract
We 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
EMNLP2