skip to main content
10.1145/3127526.3127527acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicpeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AppTechMiner: Mining Applications and Techniques from Scientific Articles

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 December 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents AppTechMiner, a rule-based information extraction framework that automatically constructs a knowledge base of all application areas and problem solving techniques. Techniques include tools, methods, datasets or evaluation metrics. We also categorize individual research articles based on their application areas and the techniques proposed/improved in the article. Our system achieves high average precision (~82%) and recall (~84%) in knowledge base creation. It also performs well in application and technique assignment to an individual article (average accuracy ~66%). In the end, we further present two use cases presenting a trivial information retrieval system and an extensive temporal analysis of the usage of techniques and application areas. At present, we demonstrate the framework for the domain of computational linguistics but this can be easily generalized to any other field of research. We plan to make the codes publicly available.

References

  1. Sharon A Caraballo. 1999. Automatic construction of a hypernym-labeled noun hierarchy from text. In Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 120--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Laura Chiticariu, Yunyao Li, and Frederick R. Reiss. 2013. Rule-Based Information Extraction is Dead! Long Live Rule-Based Information Extraction Systems!. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2013, 18-21 October 2013, Grand Hyatt Seattle, Seattle, Washington, USA, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL. 827--832. http://aclweb.org/anthology/D/D13/D13-1079.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Aaron M Cohen and William R Hersh. 2005. A survey of current work in biomedical text mining. Briefings in bioinformatics 6, 1 (2005), 57--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Carol Friedman, Pauline Kra, Hong Yu, Michael Krauthammer, and Andrey Rzhetsky. 2001. GENIES: a natural-language processing system for the extraction of molecular pathways from journal articles. Bioinformatics 17, suppl 1 (2001), S74--S82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ken-ichiro Fukuda, Tatsuhiko Tsunoda, Ayuchi Tamura, Toshihisa Takagi, and others. 1998. Toward information extraction: identifying protein names from biological papers. In Pac symp biocomput, Vol. 707. Citeseer, 707--718.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Robert Gaizauskas, George Demetriou, Peter J. Artymiuk, and Peter Willett. 2003. Protein structures and information extraction from biological texts: the PASTA system. Bioinformatics 19, 1 (2003), 135--143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Sonal Gupta and Christopher D Manning. 2011. Analyzing the Dynamics of Research by Extracting Key Aspects of Scientific Papers.. In IJCNLP. 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sonal Gupta and Christopher D Manning. 2014. Spied: Stanford pattern-based information extraction and diagnostics. Sponsor: Idibon 38 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Xiaodong He. 2007. Using word dependent transition models in HMM based word alignment for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Association for Computational Linguistics, 80--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Marti A. Hearst. 1992. Automatic Acquisition of Hyponyms from Large Text Corpora. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Computational Linguistics - Volume 2 (COLING '92). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 539--545. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yiping Jin, Min-Yen Kan, Jun-Ping Ng, and Xiangnan He. 2013. Mining Scientific Terms and their Definitions: A Study of the ACL Anthology. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, Washington, USA, 780--790. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D13-1073Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosie Jones. 2005. Learning to extract entities from labeled and unlabeled text. Ph.D. Dissertation. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Su Nam Kim, Olena Medelyan, Min-Yen Kan, and Timothy Baldwin. 2010. Semeval-2010 task 5: Automatic keyphrase extraction from scientific articles. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. Association for Computational Linguistics, 21--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Philipp Koehn, Hieu Hoang, Alexandra Birch, Chris Callison-Burch, Marcello Federico, Nicola Bertoldi, Brooke Cowan, Wade Shen, Christine Moran, Richard Zens, and others. 2007. Moses: Open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the ACL on interactive poster and demonstration sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics, 177--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Martin Krallinger, Alfonso Valencia, and Lynette Hirschman. 2008. Linking genes to literature: text mining, information extraction, and retrieval applications for biology. Genome biology 9, Suppl 2 (2008), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Patrice Lopez and Laurent Romary. 2010. HUMB: Automatic key term extraction from scientific articles in GROBID. In Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on semantic evaluation. Association for Computational Linguistics, 248--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Yashar Mehdad, Matteo Negri, and José Guilherme C de Souza. 2012. FBK: cross-lingual textual entailment without translation. In Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics-Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. Association for Computational Linguistics, 701--705. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Wolfgang Menzel and Ingo Schröder. 1998. Decision procedures for dependency parsing using graded constraints. In in proceedings of ACL'90. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hans-Michael Müller, Arun Rangarajan, Tracy K Teal, and Paul W Sternberg. 2008. Textpresso for neuroscience: searching the full text of thousands of neuroscience research papers. Neuroinformatics 6, 3 (2008), 195--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Vahed Qazvinian and Dragomir R Radev. 2008. Scientific paper summarization using citation summary networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, 689--696. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Vahed Qazvinian, Dragomir R Radev, and Arzucan Özgür. 2010. Citation summarization through keyphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 895--903. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Dragomir R. Radev, Pradeep Muthukrishnan, and Vahed Qazvinian. 2009. The ACL Anthology Network Corpus. In Proceedings, ACL Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval for Digital Libraries. Singapore. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Thomas Schoenemann. 2013. Training Nondeficient Variants of IBM-3 and IBM-4 for Word Alignment.. In ACL (1). 22--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Parantu K. Shah, Carolina Perez-Iratxeta, Peer Bork, and Miguel A. Andrade. 2003. Information extraction from full text scientific articles: Where are the keywords? BMC Bioinformatics 4, 1 (2003), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Simone Teufel and others. 2000. Argumentative zoning: Information extraction from scientific text. Ph.D. Dissertation. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Daya C Wimalasuriya and Dejing Dou. 2010. Ontology-based information extraction: An introduction and a survey of current approaches. Journal of Information Science (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Chengxiang Zhai and John Lafferty. 2004. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to information retrieval. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 22, 2 (2004), 179--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. AppTechMiner: Mining Applications and Techniques from Scientific Articles

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WOSP 2017: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Mining Scientific Publications
      December 2017
      72 pages
      ISBN:9781450353885
      DOI:10.1145/3127526

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 December 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      WOSP 2017 Paper Acceptance Rate11of17submissions,65%Overall Acceptance Rate149of241submissions,62%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader