ParsRec: A Novel Meta-Learning Approach to Recommending Bibliographic Reference Parsers
November 26, 2018 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Dominika Tkaczyk, Rohit Gupta, Riccardo Cinti, Joeran Beel
arXiv ID
1811.10369
Category
cs.IR: Information Retrieval
Cross-listed
cs.CL,
cs.DL,
cs.LG
Citations
10
Venue
Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Bibliographic reference parsers extract machine-readable metadata such as author names, title, journal, and year from bibliographic reference strings. To extract the metadata, the parsers apply heuristics or machine learning. However, no reference parser, and no algorithm, consistently gives the best results in every scenario. For instance, one tool may be best in extracting titles in ACM citation style, but only third best when APA is used. Another tool may be best in extracting English author names, while another one is best for noisy data (i.e. inconsistent citation styles). In this paper, which is an extended version of our recent RecSys poster, we address the problem of reference parsing from a recommender-systems and meta-learning perspective. We propose ParsRec, a meta-learning based recommender-system that recommends the potentially most effective parser for a given reference string. ParsRec recommends one out of 10 open-source parsers: Anystyle-Parser, Biblio, CERMINE, Citation, Citation-Parser, GROBID, ParsCit, PDFSSA4MET, Reference Tagger, and Science Parse. We evaluate ParsRec on 105k references from chemistry. We propose two approaches to meta-learning recommendations. The first approach learns the best parser for an entire reference string. The second approach learns the best parser for each metadata type in a reference string. The second approach achieved a 2.6% increase in F1 (0.909 vs. 0.886) over the best single parser (GROBID), reducing the false positive rate by 20.2% (0.075 vs. 0.094), and the false negative rate by 18.9% (0.107 vs. 0.132).
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Information Retrieval
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
π
π
Old Age
Neural Graph Collaborative Filtering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine based Neural Network for CTR Prediction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
BERT4Rec: Sequential Recommendation with Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer
R.I.P.
π
404 Not Found
Graph Neural Networks for Social Recommendation
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Personalized Top-N Sequential Recommendation via Convolutional Sequence Embedding
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted