2012
DOI: 10.1109/tkde.2011.13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Unified Probabilistic Framework for Name Disambiguation in Digital Library

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
158
0
6

Year Published

2012
2012
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 215 publications
(164 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
158
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…They define six types of constraints and employ EM algorithm to learn the HRMF model parameters. In another work, Tang et al [23,26] present two name disambiguation methods that are based on pairwise factor graph model. They target name disambiguation in academic datasets.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They define six types of constraints and employ EM algorithm to learn the HRMF model parameters. In another work, Tang et al [23,26] present two name disambiguation methods that are based on pairwise factor graph model. They target name disambiguation in academic datasets.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From methodological point of view, some of the works follow a supervised learning approach [8,10], while others use unsupervised clustering [5,9,17,25]. There exist quite a few solutions that use graphical models [3,23,26,31]. What is common among all these works is that they use many biographical features including name, and affiliation, so they cannot protect the privacy of the actors in the dataset.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, Tang et al ( [8,11]) presents two closely-related methods based on Pairwise Factor Graph models. The authorship is modeled as edges between observation variables (papers) and hidden variables (author labels).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in [12,8], we use Pairwise Precision, Pairwise Recall, and Pairwise F1 scores to evaluate the performance of our method and other methods. Specifically, any two papers that are annotated with the same label in the ground truth are called a correct pair, and any two papers that are predicted with the same label (if they are grouped in the same cluster, we also call they have the same label) by a system but are labeled differently in the ground truth are called a wrong pair.…”
Section: Experimental Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation