The CL-SciSumm 2016 shared task introduced an interesting problem: given a document D and a piece of text that cites D, how do we identify the text spans of D being referenced by the piece of text? The shared task provided the first annotated dataset for studying this problem. We present an analysis of our continued work in improving our system’s performance on this task. We demonstrate how topic models and word embeddings can be used to surpass the previously best performing system.
In addition to these features, we have to consider that multiple citation markers may be present in a sentence. Thus, only certain parts of a sentence may be relevant to identifying the target of a particular citation marker. Qazvinian and Radev @cite_8 share an approach to find the fragment of a sentence that applies to a citation, especially in the case of sentences with multiple citation markers. The research of Abu-Jbara and Radev @cite_3 further argues that a fragment need not always be continguous.
@cite_3 @cite_8
62810358 2149801561
A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. The popular h-index used to measure scientific output can be described in terms of a pool of evaluated objects (the papers), a quality function on the evaluated objects (the number of citations received by each paper) and a sentencing line crossing the origin, whose intersection with the graph of the quality function yields the index value (in the h-index this is a line with slope 1). Based on this abstraction, we present a new index, the c-index, in which the evaluated objects are the citations received by an author, a group of authors, a journal, etc., the quality function of a citation is the collaboration distance between the authors of the cited and the citing papers, and the sentencing line can take slopes between 0 and ∞. As a result, the new index counts only those citations which are significant enough, where significance is proportional to collaboration distance. Several advantages of the new c-index with respect to previous proposals are discussed. The old Asian legend about the blind men and the elephant comes to mind when looking at how different authors of scientific papers describe a piece of related prior work. It turns out that different citations to the same paper often focus on different aspects of that paper and that neither provides a full description of its full set of contributions. In this article, we will describe our investigation of this phenomenon. We studied citation summaries in the context of research papers in the biomedical domain. A citation summary is the set of citing sentences for a given article and can be used as a surrogate for the actual article in a variety of scenarios. It contains information that was deemed by peers to be important. Our study shows that citation summaries overlap to some extent with the abstracts of the papers and that they also differ from them in that they focus on different aspects of these papers than do the abstracts. In addition to this, co-cited articles (which are pairs of articles cited by another article) tend to be similar. We show results based on a lexical similarity metric called cohesion to justify our claims. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. In citation-based summarization, text written by several researchers is leveraged to identify the important aspects of a target paper. Previous work on this problem focused almost exclusively on its extraction aspect (i.e. selecting a representative set of citation sentences that highlight the contribution of the target paper). Meanwhile, the fluency of the produced summaries has been mostly ignored. For example, diversity, readability, cohesion, and ordering of the sentences included in the summary have not been thoroughly considered. This resulted in noisy and confusing summaries. In this work, we present an approach for producing readable and cohesive citation-based summaries. Our experiments show that the proposed approach outperforms several baselines in terms of both extraction quality and fluency. A new form of document coupling called co-citation is defined as the frequency with which two documents are cited together. The co-citation frequency of two scientific papers can be determined by comparing lists of citing documents in the Science Citation Index and counting identical entries. Networks of co-cited papers can be generated for specific scientific specialties, and an example is drawn from the literature of particle physics. Co-citation patterns are found to differ significantly from bibliographic coupling patterns, but to agree generally with patterns of direct citation. Clusters of co-cited papers provide a new way to study the specialty structure of science. They may provide a new approach to indexing and to the creation of SDI profiles. Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... Citation relationship between scientific publications has been successfully used for scholarly bibliometrics, information retrieval and data mining tasks, and citation-based recommendation algorithms are well documented. While previous studies investigated citation relations from various viewpoints, most of them share the same assumption that, if paper1 cites paper2 (or author1 cites author2), they are connected, regardless of citation importance, sentiment, reason, topic, or motivation. However, this assumption is oversimplified. In this study, we employ an innovative "context-rich heterogeneous network" approach, which paves a new way for citation recommendation task. In the network, we characterize 1) the importance of citation relationships between citing and cited papers, and 2) the topical citation motivation. Unlike earlier studies, the citation information, in this paper, is characterized by citation textual contexts extracted from the full-text citing paper. We also propose algorithm to cope with the situation when large portion of full-text missing information exists in the bibliographic repository. Evaluation results show that, context-rich heterogeneous network can significantly enhance the citation recommendation performance. Researchers and scientists increasingly find themselves in the position of having to quickly understand large amounts of technical material. Our goal is to effectively serve this need by using bibliometric text mining and summarization techniques to generate summaries of scientific literature. We show how we can use citations to produce automatically generated, readily consumable, technical extractive summaries. We first propose C-LexRank, a model for summarizing single scientific articles based on citations, which employs community detection and extracts salient information-rich sentences. Next, we further extend our experiments to summarize a set of papers, which cover the same scienti fic topic. We generate extractive summaries of a set of Question Answering (QA) and Dependency Parsing (DP) papers, their abstracts, and their citation sentences and show that citations have unique information amenable to creating a summary. With the tremendous amount of research publications, recommending relevant papers to researchers to fulfill their information need becomes a significant problem. The major challenge to be tackled by our work is that given a target paper, how to effectively recommend a set of relevant papers from an existing citation network. In this paper, we propose a novel method to address the problem by incorporating various citation relations for a proper set of papers, which are more relevant but with a very limited size. The proposed method has two unique properties. Firstly, a metric called Local Relation Strength is defined to measure the dependency between cited and citing papers. Secondly, a model called Global Relation Strength is proposed to capture the relevance between two papers in the whole citation graph. We evaluate our proposed model on a real-world publication dataset and conduct an extensive comparison with the state-of-the-art baseline methods. The experimental results demonstrate that our method can have a promising improvement over the state-of-the-art techniques. Background The h-index has already been used by major citation databases to evaluate the academic performance of individual scientists. Although effective and simple, the h-index suffers from some drawbacks that limit its use in accurately and fairly comparing the scientific output of different researchers. These drawbacks include information loss and low resolution: the former refers to the fact that in addition to h2 citations for papers in the h-core, excess citations are completely ignored, whereas the latter means that it is common for a group of researchers to have an identical h-index. Methodology Principal Findings To solve these problems, I here propose the e-index, where e2 represents the ignored excess citations, in addition to the h2 citations for h-core papers. Citation information can be completely depicted by using the h-index together with the e-index, which are independent of each other. Some other h-type indices, such as a and R, are h-dependent, have information redundancy with h, and therefore, when used together with h, mask the real differences in excess citations of different researchers. Conclusions Significance Although simple, the e-index is a necessary h-index complement, especially for evaluating highly cited scientists or for precisely comparing the scientific output of a group of scientists having an identical h-index. This paper examines a number of the criticisms that citation analysis has been subjected to over the years. It is argued that many of these criticisms have been based on only limited examinations of data in particular contexts and it remains unclear how broadly applicable these problems are to research conducted at different levels of analysis, in specific field, and among various national data sets. Relevant evidence is provided from analysis of Australian and international data. Citation analysis is likely to be most reliable when data is aggregated and at the highly-cited end of the distribution. It is possible to make valid inferences about individual cases, although considerable caution should be used. Bibliometric measures should be viewed as a useful supplement to other research evaluation measures rather than as a replacement. In recent years scholars have built maps of science by connecting the academic fields that cite each other, are cited together, or that cite a similar literature. But since scholars cannot always publish in the fields they cite, or that cite them, these science maps are only rough proxies for the potential of a scholar, organization, or country, to enter a new academic field. Here we use a large dataset of scholarly publications disambiguated at the individual level to create a map of science-or research space-where links connect pairs of fields based on the probability that an individual has published in both of them. We find that the research space is a significantly more accurate predictor of the fields that individuals and organizations will enter in the future than citation based science maps. At the country level, however, the research space and citations based science maps are equally accurate. These findings show that data on career trajectories-the set of fields that individuals have previously published in-provide more accurate predictors of future research output for more focalized units-such as individuals or organizations-than citation based science maps. This article challenges recent research (Evans, 2008) reporting that the concentration of cited scientific literature increases with the online availability of articles and journals. Using Thomson Reuters' Web of Science, the present article analyses changes in the concentration of citations received (2- and 5-year citation windows) by papers published between 1900 and 2005. Three measures of concentration are used: the percentage of papers that received at least one citation (cited papers); the percentage of papers needed to account for 20 , 50 , and 80 of the citations; and the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). These measures are used for four broad disciplines: natural sciences and engineering, medical fields, social sciences, and the humanities. All these measures converge and show that, contrary to what was reported by Evans, the dispersion of citations is actually increasing. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Citations are important in academic dissemination. To help researchers check the completeness of citations while authoring a paper, we introduce a citation recommendation system called RefSeer. Researchers can use it to find related works to cited while authoring papers. It can also be used by reviewers to check the completeness of a paper's references. RefSeer presents both topic based global recommendation and also citation-context based local recommendation. By evaluating the quality of recommendation, we show that such recommendation system can recommend citations with good precision and recall. We also show that our recommendation system is very efficient and scalable. In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text. When we write or prepare to write a research paper, we always have appropriate references in mind. However, there are most likely references we have missed and should have been read and cited. As such a good citation recommendation system would not only improve our paper but, overall, the efficiency and quality of literature search. Usually, a citation's context contains explicit words explaining the citation. Using this, we propose a method that "translates" research papers into references. By considering the citations and their contexts from existing papers as parallel data written in two different "languages", we adopt the translation model to create a relationship between these two "vocabularies". Experiments on both CiteSeer and CiteULike dataset show that our approach outperforms other baseline methods and increase the precision, recall and f-measure by at least 5 to 10 , respectively. In addition, our approach runs much faster in the both training and recommending stage, which proves the effectiveness and the scalability of our work. Patent prior art search is a type of search in the patent domain where documents are searched for that describe the work previously carried out related to a patent application. The goal of this search is to check whether the idea in the patent application is novel. Vocabulary mismatch is one of the main problems of patent retrieval which results in low retrievability of similar documents for a given patent application. In this paper we show how the term distribution of the cited documents in an initially retrieved ranked list can be used to address the vocabulary mismatch. We propose a method for query modeling estimation which utilizes the citation links in a pseudo relevance feedback set. We first build a topic dependent citation graph, starting from the initially retrieved set of feedback documents and utilizing citation links of feedback documents to expand the set. We identify the important documents in the topic dependent citation graph using a citation analysis measure. We then use the term distribution of the documents in the citation graph to estimate a query model by identifying the distinguishing terms and their respective weights. We then use these terms to expand our original query. We use CLEF-IP 2011 collection to evaluate the effectiveness of our query modeling approach for prior art search. We also study the influence of different parameters on the performance of the proposed method. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach significantly improves the recall over a state-of-the-art baseline which uses the link-based structure of the citation graph but not the term distribution of the cited documents. We present a framework for reformulating sentences by applying transfer rules on a typed dependency representation. We specify a list of operations that the framework needs to support and argue that typed dependency structures are currently the most suitable formalism for complex lexico-syntactic paraphrasing. We demonstrate our approach by reformulating sentences expressing the discourse relation of causation using four lexico-syntactic discourse markers -- "cause" as a verb and as a noun, "because" as a conjunction and "because of" as a preposition. Identity uncertainty is a pervasive problem in real-world data analysis. It arises whenever objects are not labeled with unique identifiers or when those identifiers may not be perceived perfectly. In such cases, two observations may or may not correspond to the same object. In this paper, we consider the problem in the context of citation matching—the problem of deciding which citations correspond to the same publication. Our approach is based on the use of a relational probability model to define a generative model for the domain, including models of author and title corruption and a probabilistic citation grammar. Identity uncertainty is handled by extending standard models to incorporate probabilities over the possible mappings between terms in the language and objects in the domain. Inference is based on Markov chain Monte Carlo, augmented with specific methods for generating efficient proposals when the domain contains many objects. Results on several citation data sets show that the method outperforms current algorithms for citation matching. The declarative, relational nature of the model also means that our algorithm can determine object characteristics such as author names by combining multiple citations of multiple papers. Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.