Jinseok Kim

Sangyeop Kim, Sohhyung Park, Jaewon Jung et al.

Understanding user satisfaction with conversational systems, known as User Satisfaction Estimation (USE), is essential for assessing dialogue quality and enhancing user experiences. However, existing methods for USE face challenges due to limited understanding of underlying reasons for user dissatisfaction and the high costs of annotating user intentions. To address these challenges, we propose PRAISE (Plan and Retrieval Alignment for Interpretable Satisfaction Estimation), an interpretable framework for effective user satisfaction prediction. PRAISE operates through three key modules. The Strategy Planner develops strategies, which are natural language criteria for classifying user satisfaction. The Feature Retriever then incorporates knowledge on user satisfaction from Large Language Models (LLMs) and retrieves relevance features from utterances. Finally, the Score Analyzer evaluates strategy predictions and classifies user satisfaction. Experimental results demonstrate that PRAISE achieves state-of-the-art performance on three benchmarks for the USE task. Beyond its superior performance, PRAISE offers additional benefits. It enhances interpretability by providing instance-level explanations through effective alignment of utterances with strategies. Moreover, PRAISE operates more efficiently than existing approaches by eliminating the need for LLMs during the inference phase.

HaeJin Lee, Shubhanshu Mishra, Apratim Mishra et al.

Gender biases in scholarly metrics remain a persistent concern, despite numerous bibliometric studies exploring their presence and absence across productivity, impact, acknowledgment, and self-citations. However, methodological inconsistencies, particularly in author name disambiguation and gender identification, limit the reliability and comparability of these studies, potentially perpetuating misperceptions and hindering effective interventions. A review of 70 relevant publications over the past 12 years reveals a wide range of approaches, from name-based and manual searches to more algorithmic and gold-standard methods, with no clear consensus on best practices. This variability, compounded by challenges such as accurately disambiguating Asian names and managing unassigned gender labels, underscores the urgent need for standardized and robust methodologies. To address this critical gap, we propose the development and implementation of ``Scholarly Data Analysis (SoDA) Cards." These cards will provide a structured framework for documenting and reporting key methodological choices in scholarly data analysis, including author name disambiguation and gender identification procedures. By promoting transparency and reproducibility, SoDA Cards will facilitate more accurate comparisons and aggregations of research findings, ultimately supporting evidence-informed policymaking and enabling the longitudinal tracking of analytical approaches in the study of gender and other social biases in academia.

Jinseok Kim

Author name disambiguation results are often evaluated by measures such as Cluster-F, K-metric, Pairwise-F, Splitting & Lumping Error, and B-cubed. Although these measures have distinctive evaluation schemes, this paper shows that they can be calculated in a single framework by a set of common steps that compare truth and predicted clusters through two hash tables recording information about name instances with their predicted cluster indices and frequencies of those indices per truth cluster. This integrative calculation reduces greatly calculation runtime, which is scalable to a clustering task involving millions of name instances within a few seconds. During the integration process, B-cubed and K-metric are shown to produce the same precision and recall scores. In this framework, especially, name instance pairs for Pairwise-F are counted using a heuristic, surpassing a state-of-the-art algorithm in speedy calculation. Details of the integrative calculation are described with examples and pseudo-code to assist scholars to implement each measure easily and validate the correctness of implementation. The integrative calculation will help scholars compare similarities and differences of multiple measures before they select ones that characterize best the clustering performances of their disambiguation methods.

Jinseok Kim

Several studies have found that collaboration networks are scale-free, proposing that such networks can be modeled by specific network evolution mechanisms like preferential attachment. This study argues that collaboration networks can look more or less scale-free depending on the methods for resolving author name ambiguity in bibliographic data. Analyzing networks constructed from multiple datasets containing 3.4M ~ 9.6M publication records, this study shows that collaboration networks in which author names are disambiguated by the commonly used heuristic, i.e., forename-initial-based name matching, tend to produce degree distributions better fitted to power-law slopes with the typical scaling parameter (2 < α < 3) than networks disambiguated by more accurate algorithm-based methods. Such tendency is observed across collaboration networks generated under various conditions such as cumulative years, 5- & 1-year sliding windows, and random sampling, and through simulation, found to arise due mainly to artefactual entities created by inaccurate disambiguation. This cautionary study calls for special attention from scholars analyzing network data in which entities such as people, organization, and gene can be merged or split by improper disambiguation.

Jinseok Kim, Jenna Kim

In supervised machine learning for author name disambiguation, negative training data are often dominantly larger than positive training data. This paper examines how the ratios of negative to positive training data can affect the performance of machine learning algorithms to disambiguate author names in bibliographic records. On multiple labeled datasets, three classifiers - Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, and Random Forest - are trained through representative features such as coauthor names, and title words extracted from the same training data but with various positive-negative training data ratios. Results show that increasing negative training data can improve disambiguation performance but with a few percent of performance gains and sometimes degrade it. Logistic Regression and Naïve Bayes learn optimal disambiguation models even with a base ratio (1:1) of positive and negative training data. Also, the performance improvement by Random Forest tends to quickly saturate roughly after 1:10 ~ 1:15. These findings imply that contrary to the common practice using all training data, name disambiguation algorithms can be trained using part of negative training data without degrading much disambiguation performance while increasing computational efficiency. This study calls for more attention from author name disambiguation scholars to methods for machine learning from imbalanced data.

Jinseok Kim

Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and journal publications are, considering a paper as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more papers, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in journals. Importantly, conference papers seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to journal publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators outside CS who have focused on journal publications to mine authorship data and evaluate scholarly performance.

Jinseok Kim

Author name ambiguity in a digital library may affect the findings of research that mines authorship data of the library. This study evaluates author name disambiguation in DBLP, a widely used but insufficiently evaluated digital library for its disambiguation performance. In doing so, this study takes a triangulation approach that author name disambiguation for a digital library can be better evaluated when its performance is assessed on multiple labeled datasets with comparison to baselines. Tested on three types of labeled data containing 5,000 ~ 700K disambiguated names and 6M pairs of disambiguated names, DBLP is shown to assign author names quite accurately to distinct authors, resulting in pairwise precision, recall, and F1 measures around 0.90 or above overall. DBLP's author name disambiguation performs well even on large ambiguous name blocks but deficiently on distinguishing authors with the same names. When compared to other disambiguation algorithms, DBLP's disambiguation performance is quite competitive, possibly due to its hybrid disambiguation approach combining algorithmic disambiguation and manual error correction. A discussion follows on strengths and weaknesses of labeled datasets used in this study for future efforts to evaluate author name disambiguation on a digital library scale.