150 likes | 317 Views
WING Monthly Meeting SIGIR 2014 Debrief. 25 th July 2014 By Jovian Lin. Stats. 387 full paper submissions 6% increase from last year 82 (21%) were accepted. Stats: Top Countries (Full Papers). Stats: Top Topics (Full Papers). Selection Process (1/2).
E N D
WING Monthly MeetingSIGIR 2014 Debrief 25th July 2014 By Jovian Lin
Stats • 387 full paper submissions • 6% increase from last year • 82 (21%) were accepted.
Selection Process (1/2) • Two-tier double-blind review process. • At least 3 reviewers for each paper. • Then Primary Area Chair leads a discussion; produces a meta-review. • Secondary Area Chair (assigned to each paper) double checks the reviews and discussion, and may provide additional reviews
Selection Process (2/2) • The PC chairs ranked the submitted papers by the meta-review score and then by the average score of the three reviewer scores, carefully examined the reviews and associated discussion. • The PC chairs first identified "clear accepts" and "clear rejects". • Then the undecided papers were carefully discussed in a face-to-face PC meeting held in Amsterdam, which involved all available Area Chairs.
Additional Info (1/2) • Tutorials: 7 out of 17 accepted. • Workshops: 7 out of 11 accepted. • Demos: 16 out of 34 accepted. • Doctoral Consortium: 8 out of 11 accepted.
Additional Info (2/2) • The short papers track received 263 submissions (3% increase over last year)… • …and accepted 104 of them (40% acceptance compared to 34% last year). • For the second year, the short papers are 4 pages long.
The Future… SIGIR'15: Santiago, Chile (Due: Jan 28, 2015) SIGIR'16: Pisa, Italy SIGIR'17: Tokyo, Japan CIKM'15: Melbourne, Australia CIKM'16: Indianapolis, US WSDM'15: Shanghai, China JCDL'15: Tennessee, US
Best Papers • The SIGIR 2014 Best Paper Award was presented to Giuseppe Ottaviano and RossanoVenturini for their paper “Partitioned Elias-Fano indexes.” • The Best Student Paper Award was awarded to Dmitry Lagun, Chih-Hung Hsieh, Dale Webster, and VidhyaNavalpakkam for their paper “Towards better measurement of attention and satisfaction in mobile search.”
Learning Similarity of Functions for Topic Detection in Online Reputation Monitoring • Problem: • Reputation management experts have to monitor Twitter constantly to see what is being said. • Real-time online opinions are now key to understand the reputation of organizations/individuals. • Managing it manually is costly and unfeasible.
Learning Similarity of Functions for Topic Detection in Online Reputation Monitoring • Solution: • Seeing “reputation monitoring” as a topic detection task • Task Definition: • Given an entity (e.g. Yamaha) and a set of tweets relevant to the entity, the task consists of identifying tweet clusters, where each cluster represents a topic/event/issue/conversation being discussed in the tweets… • … just like how it’d be identified by a reputation management expert.
Learning Similarity of Functions for Topic Detection in Online Reputation Monitoring • What they did: • Learn a pairwise tweet similarity function from previously annotated data. • Predict whether 2 given tweets are about the same topic or not. • Use: terms, concepts, hashtags, urls, author, namedusers, timestamp • Use clustering algorithm (based on similarity function) to detect related topics. • Found: Twitter signals can be used to improve topic detection (compared to content-only).