ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Separate and inequal: preserving heterogeneity in topical authority flows
Full text PdfPdf (311 KB)
Source
Annual ACM Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval archive
Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval table of contents
Singapore, Singapore
SESSION: Analysis of social networks table of contents
Pages 443-450  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-164-4
Authors
Lan Nie  Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
Brian D. Davison  Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGIR: ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 11,   Downloads (12 Months): 165,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1390334.1390411
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Web pages, like people, are often known by others in a variety of contexts. When those contexts are sufficiently distinct, a page's importance may be better represented by multiple domains of authority, rather than by one that indiscriminately mixes reputations. In this work we determine domains of authority by examining the contexts in which a page is cited. However, we find that it is not enough to determine separate domains of authority; our model additionally determines the local flow of authority based upon the relative similarity of the source and target authority domains. In this way, we differentiate both incoming and outgoing hyperlinks by topicality and importance rather than treating them indiscriminately. We find that this approach compares favorably to other topical ranking methods on two real-world datasets and produces an approximately 10% improvement in precision and quality of the top ten results over PageRank.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
 
3
4
5
6
 
7
8
 
9
 
10
A. K. McCallum. Bow: A toolkit for statistical language modeling, text retrieval, classification and clustering. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mccallum/bow, 1996.
11
 
12
L. Nie, B. D. Davison, and B. Wu. From whence does your authority come? Utilizing community relevance in ranking. In Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 1421--1426, July 2007.
13
 
14
The dmoz Open Directory Project (ODP), 2008. http://www.dmoz.com/.
 
15
L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd. The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the Web. Technical report, Stanford University, 1998. Available from http://dbpubs.stanford.edu/pub/1999-66. Accessed 29 March 2008.
 
16
 
17
D. Rafiei and A. O. Mendelzon. What do the neighbours think? Computing web page reputations. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 23(3):9--16, Sept. 2000.
 
18
 
19
M. Richardson and P. Domingos. The Intelligent Surfer: Probabilistic combination of link and content information in PageRank. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14. MIT Press, 2002.
 
20
G. O. Roberts and J. S. Rosenthal. Downweighting tightly knit communities in world wide web rankings. Advances and Applications in Statistics, 3(3):199--216, Dec. 2003.
 
21
S. E. Robertson. Overview of the OKAPI projects. Journal of Documentation, 53:3--7, 1997.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Lan Nie: colleagues
Brian D. Davison: colleagues