4.6 Article

Diversifying Citation Recommendations

Publisher

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/2668106

Keywords

Algorithms; Experimentation; Bibliographic search; diversity; direction awareness

Funding

  1. NIH/NCI [R01CA141090]
  2. NSF [CNS-0643969]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Literature search is one of the most important steps of academic research. With more than 100,000 papers published each year just in computer science, performing a complete literature search becomes a Herculean task. Some of the existing approaches and tools for literature search cannot compete with the characteristics of today's literature, and they suffer from ambiguity and homonymy. Techniques based on citation information are more robust to the mentioned issues. Thus, we recently built a Web service called the advisor, which provides personalized recommendations to researchers based on their papers of interest. Since most recommendation methods may return redundant results, diversifying the results of the search process is necessary to increase the amount of information that one can reach via an automated search. This article targets the problem of result diversification in citation-based bibliographic search, assuming that the citation graph itself is the only information available and no categories or intents are known. The contribution of this work is threefold. We survey various random walk-based diversification methods and enhance them with the direction awareness property to allow users to reach either old, foundational (possibly well-cited and well-known) research papers or recent (most likely less-known) ones. Next, we propose a set of novel algorithms based on vertex selection and query refinement. A set of experiments with various evaluation criteria shows that the proposed.-RLM algorithm performs better than the existing approaches and is suitable for real-time bibliographic search in practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available