Changeset - f498db58227f
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Gebrekirstos Gebremeskel - 11 years ago 2014-06-12 05:44:17
destinycome@gmail.com
updated
1 file changed with 4 insertions and 8 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
mypaper-final.tex
Show inline comments
 
@@ -216,38 +216,34 @@ The rest of the paper  is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:desc} describes
 
We base this analysis on the TREC-KBA 2013 dataset%
 
\footnote{\url{http://trec-kba.org/trec-kba-2013.shtml}}
 
that consists of three main parts: a time-stamped stream corpus, a set of
 
KB entities to be curated, and a set of relevance judgments. A CCR
 
system now has to identify for each KB entity which documents in the
 
stream corpus are to be considered by the human curator.
 
 
\subsection{Stream corpus} The stream corpus comes in two versions:
 
raw and cleaned. The raw and cleansed versions are 6.45TB and 4.5TB
 
respectively,  after xz-compression and GPG encryption. The raw data
 
is a  dump of  raw HTML pages. The cleansed version is the raw data
 
after its HTML tags are stripped off and only English documents
 
identified with Chromium Compact Language Detector%
 
identified with Chromium Compact Language Detector
 
\footnote{\url{https://code.google.com/p/chromium-compact-language-detector/}}
 
are included.  The stream corpus is organized in hourly folders each
 
of which contains many  chunk files. Each chunk file contains between
 
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of serialized  thrift objects. One
 
thrift object is one document. A document could be a blog article, a
 
news article, or a social media post (including tweet).  The stream
 
corpus comes from three sources: TREC KBA 2012 (social, news and
 
linking)%
 
\footnote{\url{http://trec-kba.org/kba-stream-corpus-2012.shtml}%
 
},
 
arxiv%
 
\footnote{\url{http://arxiv.org/}%
 
}, and
 
linking) \footnote{\url{http://trec-kba.org/kba-stream-corpus-2012.shtml}},
 
arxiv\footnote{\url{http://arxiv.org/}}, and
 
spinn3r\footnote{\url{http://spinn3r.com/}}.
 
Table \ref{tab:streams} shows the sources, the number of hourly
 
directories, and the number of chunk files.
 
\begin{table}
 
\caption{Retrieved documents to different sources }
 
\begin{center}
 
 
 \begin{tabular}{l*{4}{l}l}
 
 documents     &   chunk files    &    Sub-stream \\
 
\hline
 
 
126,952         &11,851         &arxiv \\
 
@@ -1114,25 +1110,25 @@ We observed that there are vital-relevant documents that we miss from raw only,
 
\paragraph*{Politician - constituency} A major political event in a certain constituency is vital for the politician from that constituency. 
 
 A good example is a weblog that talks about two north Dakota counties being drought disasters. The news is vital for Joshua Boschee, a politician, a member of North Dakota democratic party.  
 
\paragraph*{head - organization} A document that talks about an organization of which the entity is the head can be vital for the entity.  Jasper\_Schneider is USDA Rural Development state director for North Dakota and an article about problems of primary health centers in North Dakota is judged vital for him. 
 
\paragraph*{World Knowledge} Some things are impossible to know without your world knowledge. For example ''refreshments, treats, gift shop specials, "bountiful, fresh and fabulous holiday decor," a demonstration of simple ways to create unique holiday arrangements for any home; free and open to the public`` is judged relevant to Hjemkomst\_Center. This is a social media post, and unless one knows the person posting it, there is no way that this text shows that. Similarly ''learn about the gray wolf's hunting and feeding behaviors and watch the wolves have their evening meal of a full deer carcass; $15 for members, $20 for nonmembers`` is judged vital to Red\_River\_Zoo.  
 
\paragraph*{No document content} A small number of documents were found to have no content.
 
\paragraph*{Disagreement} For a few remaining documents, the authors disagree with the assessors as to why these are vital to the entity.
 
 
 
 
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conc}
 
In this paper, we examined the filtering stage of the entity-centric stream filtering and ranking  by holding the later stages of fixed. In particular, we studied the cleansing step, different entity profiles, type of entities(Wikipedia or Twitter), categories of documents(news, social, or others) and the relevance ratings. We attempted to address the following research questions: 1) does cleansing affect filtering and subsequent performance? 2) what is the most effective way of entity profiling? 3) is filtering different for Wikipedia and Twitter entities? 4) are some type of documents easily filterable and others not? 5) does a gain in recall at filtering step translate to a gain in F-measure at the end of the pipeline? and 6) what are the circumstances under which vital documents can not be retrieved? 
 
 
Cleansing does remove parts or entire contents of documents making them irretrievable. However, because of the introduction of false positives, recall gains by  raw corpus and some  richer entity profiles do not necessarily translate to overall performance gain. The results conclusion on this is mixed in the sense that cleansing helps improve the recall on vital documents and Wikipedia entities, but reduces the recall on Twitter entities and the relative category of relevance ranking. Vital and relevant documents show a difference in retrieval nonperformance documents are easier to filter than relevant.  
 
Cleansing does remove parts or entire contents of documents making them irretrievable. However, because of the introduction of false positives, recall gains by  raw corpus and some  richer entity profiles do not necessarily translate to overall performance gain. The  conclusion on this is mixed in the sense that cleansing helps improve the recall on vital documents and Wikipedia entities, but reduces the recall on Twitter entities and the relative category of relevance ranking. Vital and relevant documents show a difference in retrieval performance. Vital documents are easier to filter than relevant.  
 
 
 
Despite an aggressive attempt to filter as many vital-relevant documents as possible,  we observe that there are still documents that we miss. While some are possible to retrieve with some modifications, some others are not. There are some document that indicate that an information filtering system does not seem to get them no matter how rich representation of entities they use. These circumstances under which this happens are many. We found that some documents have no content at all, subjectivity(it is not clear why some are judged vital). However, the main circumstances under which vital  documents can defy filtering is: outgoing link mentions, 
 
venue-event, entity - related entity, organization - main area of operation, entity - group, artist - artist's work,  party-politician, and world knowledge.  
 
 
 
%ACKNOWLEDGMENTS are optional
 
%\section{Acknowledgments}
 
 
%
 
% The following two commands are all you need in the
 
% initial runs of your .tex file to
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)