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

Xiangyi Ye

dblp:184/3743 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—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
Information extraction and text analysis · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › text similarity
semantic similarity
0.212016
Effects of Creativity and Cluster Tightness on Short Text Clustering Performance · ACL (1) 2016
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › text mining › text clustering
short text clustering
0.212016
Effects of Creativity and Cluster Tightness on Short Text Clustering Performance · ACL (1) 2016
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › text mining
text clustering
0.212016
Effects of Creativity and Cluster Tightness on Short Text Clustering Performance · ACL (1) 2016

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

k-means · 0.2graph-based clustering · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Effects of Creativity and Cluster Tightness on Short Text Clustering Performance
abstract
Properties of corpora, such as the diversity of vocabulary and how tightly related texts cluster together, impact the best way to cluster short texts.We examine several such properties in a variety of corpora and track their effects on various combinations of similarity metrics and clustering algorithms.We show that semantic similarity metrics outperform traditional n-gram and dependency similarity metrics for kmeans clustering of a linguistically creative dataset, but do not help with less creative texts.Yet the choice of similarity metric interacts with the choice of clustering method.We find that graphbased clustering methods perform well on tightly clustered data but poorly on loosely clustered data.Semantic similarity metrics generate loosely clustered output even when applied to a tightly clustered dataset.Thus, the best performing clustering systems could not use semantic metrics.
Catherine Finegan-Dollak, Reed Coke, Rui Zhang 0037, Xiangyi Ye, Dragomir R. Radev
ACL (1)4