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

Guy Halawi

dblp:117/4346 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as 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 · 3 · 1 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 1 first-author

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 · 67% Representation and self-supervised learning · 33%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › lexical semantics
semantic relatedness
0.112012
Large-scale learning of word relatedness with constraints · KDD 2012
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › lexical semantics › semantic relatedness
word relatedness
0.112012
Large-scale learning of word relatedness with constraints · KDD 2012
Machine learning › Representation and self-supervised learning
word representation
0.112012
Large-scale learning of word relatedness with constraints · KDD 2012

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

low-dimensional embedding · 0.1constrained learning · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Rank by Time or by Relevance?: Revisiting Email Search
abstract
With Web mail services offering larger and larger storage capacity, most users do not feel the need to systematically delete messages anymore and inboxes keep growing. It is quite surprising that in spite of the huge progress of relevance ranking in Web Search, mail search results are still typically ranked by date. This can probably be explained by the fact that users demand perfect recall in order to "re-find" a previously seen message, and would not trust relevance ranking. Yet mail search is still considered a difficult and frustrating task, especially when trying to locate older messages. In this paper, we study the current search traffic of Yahoo mail, a major Web commercial mail service, and discuss the limitations of ranking search results by date. We argue that this sort-by-date paradigm needs to be revisited in order to account for the specific structure and nature of mail messages, as well as the high-recall needs of users. We describe a two-phase ranking approach, in which the first phase is geared towards maximizing recall and the second phase follows a learning-to-rank approach that considers a rich set of mail-specific features to maintain precision. We present our results obtained on real mail search query traffic, for three different datasets, via manual as well as automatic evaluation. We demonstrate that the default time-driven ranking can be significantly improved in terms of both recall and precision, by taking into consideration time recency and textual similarity to the query, as well as mail-specific signals such as users' actions.
David Carmel, Guy Halawi, Liane Lewin-Eytan, Yoelle Maarek, Ariel Raviv
CIKM2
2014 How Many Folders Do You Really Need?: Classifying Email into a Handful of Categories
abstract
Email classification is still a mostly manual task. Consequently, most Web mail users never define a single folder. Recently however, automatic classification offering the same categories to all users has started to appear in some Web mail clients, such as AOL or Gmail. We adopt this approach, rather than previous (unsuccessful) personalized approaches because of the change in the nature of consumer email traffic, which is now dominated by (non-spam) machine-generated email. We propose here a novel approach for (1) automatically distinguishing between personal and machine-generated email and (2) classifying messages into latent categories, without requiring users to have defined any folder. We report how we have discovered that a set of 6 "latent" categories (one for human- and the others for machine-generated messages) can explain a significant portion of email traffic. We describe in details the steps involved in building a Web-scale email categorization system, from the collection of ground-truth labels, the selection of features to the training of models. Experimental evaluation was performed on more than 500 billion messages received during a period of six months by users of Yahoo mail service, who elected to be part of such research studies. Our system achieved precision and recall rates close to 90% and the latent categories we discovered were shown to cover 70% of both email traffic and email search queries. We believe that these results pave the way for a change of approach in the Web mail industry, and could support the invention of new large-scale email discovery paradigms that had not been possible before.
Mihajlo Grbovic, Guy Halawi, Zohar S. Karnin, Yoelle Maarek
CIKM2
2012 Large-scale learning of word relatedness with constraints
abstract
Prior work on computing semantic relatedness of words focused on representing their meaning in isolation, effectively disregarding inter-word affinities. We propose a large-scale data mining approach to learning word-word relatedness, where known pairs of related words impose constraints on the learning process. We learn for each word a low-dimensional representation, which strives to maximize the likelihood of a word given the contexts in which it appears. Our method, called CLEAR, is shown to significantly outperform previously published approaches. The proposed method is based on first principles, and is generic enough to exploit diverse types of text corpora, while having the flexibility to impose constraints on the derived word similarities. We also make publicly available a new labeled dataset for evaluating word relatedness algorithms, which we believe to be the largest such dataset to date.
Guy Halawi, Gideon Dror, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Yehuda Koren
KDD1