Academic Article Recommendation Using Multiple Perspectives

We argue that Content-based filtering (CBF) and Graph-based methods (GB) complement one another in Academic Search recommendations. The scientific literature can be viewed as a conversation between authors and the audience. CBF uses abstracts to infer authors' positions, and GB uses citations to infer responses from the audience. In this paper, we describe nine differences between CBF and GB, as well as synergistic opportunities for hybrid combinations. Two embeddings will be used to illustrate these opportunities: (1) Specter, a CBF method based on BERT-like deepnet encodings of abstracts, and (2) ProNE, a GB method based on spectral clustering of more than 200M papers and 2B citations from Semantic Scholar.

We Need to Talk About Classification Evaluation Metrics in NLP

In Natural Language Processing (NLP) classification tasks such as topic categorisation and sentiment analysis, model generalizability is generally measured with standard metrics such as Accuracy, F-Measure, or AUC-ROC. The diversity of metrics, and the arbitrariness of their application suggest that there is no agreement within NLP on a single best metric to use. This lack suggests there has not been sufficient examination of the underlying heuristics which each metric encodes. To address this we compare several standard classification metrics with more 'exotic' metrics and demonstrate that a random-guess normalised Informedness metric is a parsimonious baseline for task performance. To show how important the choice of metric is, we perform extensive experiments on a wide range of NLP tasks including a synthetic scenario, natural language understanding, question answering and machine translation. Across these tasks we use a superset of metrics to rank models and find that Informedness best captures the ideal model characteristics. Finally, we release a Python implementation of Informedness following the SciKitLearn classifier format.