User talk:Denmum

Welcome!

Hello, Denmum, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Week 7 Peer Review

Hey Denmum,

I like what you've done so far. However, I would definitely recommend that you flesh out your work a little bit more thoroughly, and organize everything in a more cohesive way. Right now, you appear to have sections on some on your talking points, but it seems in progress and could use some further evidence/elaboration. Also, I feel like rather than simply listing citations for all of your individual's work, it would be better if you could create a section for your individual's work and incorporate some of their talking points into that section. Right now, it's pretty pointless to have this large list as you have the references right below.

Other than that, it's a great start!

Peer Review Week 8

Hello Denmum!

This is a good contribution to the article. You add a lot of detailed and thorough information. You use a lot of diverse and well-supported sources. You also do a good job of defining the terms you use or linking them to other pages. I would link as much as possible so that your article can be found and so readers can clarify terminology they do not understand.

Under "More info on association rules for prediction" I found these passages to be a little unclear: "Liu and his collaborators described a new association rule based classification algorithm that takes into account the relationship between an item, two items, etc. and the positive and negative classes and gives each item a probability likelihood or scoring of being in the positive class or the negative class. It then ranks the items as per which ones would be most likely to be in the positive class."

Consider rewording to something like this (if it does not change the meaning too much): "Liu and his collaborators described a new association rule-based classification algorithm that takes into account the relationship between a single or multiple items and the positive and negative classes, giving each item a probability or scoring of being in the positive class or the negative class. It then ranks the items by which would be most likely to be in the positive class"

One content area you could consider adding is a discussion of the larger impact of Liu's work in contributing to the field. You also might want to consider going back and making sure you have thoroughly cited everything.

Overall great job!

Casademasa (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 7 Peer Review

Detailed Information to be added to Academic Research Portion More info on association rules for prediction Association rule based classification/prediction takes into account the relationships between each and all items in a dataset and the class into which one is trying to classify that item. The basis is that there are two classes, a positive class and a negative class, that one is trying to classify items into. Some classification algorithms only check if a case/item is in the positive class, without understanding how much exactly the probability of it being in that class is. Liu and his collaborators described a new association rule based classification algorithm that takes into account the relationship between an item, two items, etc. and the positive and negative classes and gives each item a probability likelihood or scoring of being in the positive class or the negative class. It then ranks the items as per which ones would be most likely to be in the positive class. (I like this section because it has an objective tone. I think you should remove the "/" since I feel it only makes the explanation more confusing. I'd rather the article be specific as to what it is talking about. The last sentence in this section is also a bit of a run-on so think about splitting it up. I would also add how this section relates to Liu as well. Otherwise, I think this matches the encyclopedic tone of Wikipedia.)

More info on sentiment analysis/opinion mining In a paper that Liu collaborated on, the authors study the relationship between opinion lexicons (word sets) and opinion targets (or topics on which there is an opinion). They discuss how their algorithm uses a limited opinion word set with the topic and through double propagation, one is able to form a more detailed opinion word set on a set of sentences. Double propagation is the back and forth functional process between the word set and topic as the word set updates itself. Some algorithms require set rules and thus are limited in what they can actually do and in what service they provide in providing updated opinion lists. Their algorithm only requires an initial word set (or opinion lexicon), which is updated through finding relations between the words in the set and the target word or vice versa. The algorithm is done on a word population such as a set of sentences or a paragraph. (I think the tone in this section is just as good as the previous. However, I would revise rewording the first sentence since it reads a bit awkwardly.)

Articles(Peer-reviewed Article List) Liu, Bing, Yiming Ma, Ching Kian Wong, and Philip S. Yu. 2003. “Scoring the Data Using Association Rules.” Applied Intelligence 18(2):119–35. Qiu, Guang, Bing Liu, Jiajun Bu, and Chun Chen. 2011. “Opinion Word Expansion and Target Extraction through Double Propagation.” Computational Linguistics 37(1):9–27. Wu, Xindong et al. 2007. “Top 10 Algorithms in Data Mining.” Knowledge and Information Systems 14(1):1–37. Liu, Bing. 1995. “A Unified Framework for Consistency Check.” International Journal of Intelligent Systems 10(8):691–713. Zhang, Lei, Shuai Wang, and Bing Liu. 2018. “Deep Learning for Sentiment Analysis: A Survey.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8(4). Wang, Guan, Sihong Xie, Bing Liu, and Philip S. Yu. 2012. “Identify Online Store Review Spammers via Social Review Graph.” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 3(4):1–21. Yu, Zeng et al. 2019. “Reconstruction of Hidden Representation for Robust Feature Extraction.” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 10(2):1–24. Wang, Jing, Clement T. Yu, Philip S. Yu, Bing Liu, and Weiyi Meng. 2015. “Diversionary Comments under Blog Posts.” ACM Transactions on the Web 9(4):1–34. Bing Liu, Wynne Hsu, Lai-Fun Mun, and Hing-Yan Lee. 1999. “Finding Interesting Patterns Using User Expectations.” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 11(6):817–32. Yanhong Zhai and Bing Liu. 2006. “Structured Data Extraction from the Web Based on Partial Tree Alignment.” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 18(12):1614–28. Yu, Huilin, Tieyun Qian, Yile Liang, and Bing Liu. 2020. “AGTR: Adversarial Generation of Target Review for Rating Prediction.” Data Science and Engineering 5(4):346–59. Bing Liu. 1997. “Route Finding by Using Knowledge about the Road Network.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 27(4):436–48. Liu, Bing. 1993. “Problem Acquisition in Scheduling Domains.” Expert Systems with Applications 6(3):257–65. Liu, Bing. 1993. “Knowledge-Based Factory Scheduling: Resource Allocation and Constraint Satisfaction.” Expert Systems with Applications 6(3):349–59. Bing Liu, R. Grossman, and Yanhong Zhai. 2004. “Mining Web Pages for Data Records.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 19(06):49–55. Bing Liu, Wynne Hsu, Shu Chen, and Yiming Ma. 2000. “Analyzing the Subjective Interestingness of Association Rules.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 15(5):47–55. Liu, Bing and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2008. “Managing Large Collections of Data Mining Models.” Communications of the ACM 51(2):85–89. Liu, Qian, Zhiqiang Gao, Bing Liu, and Yuanlin Zhang. 2016. “Automated Rule Selection for Opinion Target Extraction.” Knowledge-Based Systems 104:74–88. Liu, Bing. 2017. “Lifelong Machine Learning: a Paradigm for Continuous Learning.” Frontiers of Computer Science 11(3):359–61. Poria, Soujanya, Ong Yew Soon, Bing Liu, and Lidong Bing. 2020. “Affect Recognition for Multimodal Natural Language Processing.” Cognitive Computation 13(2):229–30. Qian, Yuhua, Hang Xu, Jiye Liang, Bing Liu, and Jieting Wang. 2015. “Fusing Monotonic Decision Trees.” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 27(10):2717–28. Wang, Hao, Yan Yang, Bing Liu, and Hamido Fujita. 2019. “A Study of Graph-Based System for Multi-View Clustering.” Knowledge-Based Systems 163:1009–19. Li, Huayi, Bing Liu, Arjun Mukherjee, and Jidong Shao. 2014. “Spotting Fake Reviews Using Positive-Unlabeled Learning.” Computación y Sistemas 18(3). Zhai, Zhongwu, Bing Liu, Jingyuan Wang, Hua Xu, and Peifa Jia. 2012. “Product Feature Grouping for Opinion Mining.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 27(4):37–44. Apte, Chidanand, Bing Liu, Edwin P. Pednault, and Padhraic Smyth. 2002. “Business Applications of Data Mining.” Communications of the ACM 45(8):49–53. Li, Yanni et al. 2020. “ESA-Stream: Efficient Self-Adaptive Online Data Stream Clustering.” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 1–1. Liu, Bing. 2010. “Sentiment Analysis: A Multi-Faceted Problem.” IEEE Intelligent Systems. Robert Grossman, Pavan Kasturi, Donald Hamelberg, and Bing Liu. 2004. "An Empirical Study of the Universal Chemical Key Algorithm for Assigning Unique Keys to Chemical Compounds." Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology 02(01):155–71. Liu, Bing et al. 1994. “Finding the Shortest Route Using Cases, Knowledge, and Djikstra's Algorithm.” IEEE Expert 9(5):7–11. Liu, Bing. 1994. "Specific Constraint Handling in Constraint Satisfaction Problems.” International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 03(01):79–96. (I didn't check all the sources but from what I see they look to be good and are all in the correct format.)

Summary

Overall, I like the additions you are making to the article. I think they just need to be reworded a bit, but otherwise it's good.

PLP Buddy Article Review

Hi Denmum,

So far, your article is well-sourced. You provide citations where necessary and you have already put hyperlinks in your text, which are both good things. It seems like you know where you want to take this article, and have planned the outline already. I also like that you included a section on Bing Liu's article contributions -- that could help people interested in Liu's research to pursue further reading. Some of your writing can be simplified and made clearer. For instance, "Liu and his collaborators described a new association rule-based classification algorithm that takes into account the relationship between a single or multiple items and the positive and negative classes, giving each item a probability or scoring of being in the positive class or the negative class," can be shortened. "Single or multiple items" can be reduced to "items" and the last clause can be made into a new sentence, e.g., "Each item is given a score, representing its probability of being in the positive or negative class." There also needs to be consistency across your punctuation: for example, you put an en-dash in the second usage of "association rule-based classification" but not the first. Overall, good job so far! Keep up the good work. Showtime oski (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 9 Peer Edit

It seems like you're contributing to a preexisting article. Looking at it, I think there are a couple things you could add on to what you've written. First, I think adding a bit more the Bing Liu's lead/biography information could help the article feel a bit more cohesive. I like what you're adding to the "Academic Research" section, as it feels much more complete with your additions. As for the articles list, however, I feel like there's a bit too much. Since that section doesn't really bring up any information, I think it should be either cut down, or you could synthesize the information he presents in the articles/mention what perspectives Bing Liu holds in them - that way, the reader can get a sense of Bing Liu's achievements/views on computer science rather than forcing them to go through a list of their work. The big block of text just doesn't make too much sense in my opinion. Otherwise, I like what you've added a lot!

Redpandafan (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 9 Peer Review

I don't think this has been editted since I last did my peer review so I'll just reiterate and add on to what I said before.

Detailed Information to be added to Academic Research Portion

More info on association rules for prediction

Association rule based classification/prediction takes into account the relationships between each and all items in a dataset and the class into which one is trying to classify that item. The basis is that there are two classes, a positive class and a negative class, that one is trying to classify items into. (The grammar in this sentence is a bit wonky. I think you're trying to say that "there are two classes into which one classifies items" or something along those lines.) Some classification algorithms only check if a case/item is in the positive class, without understanding how much exactly the probability of it being in that class is. Liu and his collaborators described a new association rule based classification algorithm that takes into account the relationship between an item, two items, etc. and the positive and negative classes and gives each item a probability likelihood or scoring of being in the positive class or the negative class. (I would break up the previous sentence since it goes on too long) It then ranks the items as per which ones would be most likely to be in the positive class. (I would avoid using so many slashes in this paragraph. The meaning of a slash is sort of vague; you can't tell if it means "and" or "or". I would just use those two words instead so that what you're saying is more clear. Similarly, using "etc" is vague.)

More info on sentiment analysis/opinion mining (Similarly, I wouldn't use slashes. I would clarify what you mean here. Are the two phrases synonyms? Are they two completely different things that both belong in this paragraph?)

In a paper that Liu collaborated on, the authors study the relationship between opinion lexicons (word sets) and opinion targets (or topics on which there is an opinion). (I would reword this so that it's more clear who the "authors" are. I assume the authors are of that paper, but it's ambiguous the way you have worded it) They (right here it would useful if you clarified who "they" are and what "paper" you are talking about) discuss how their algorithm uses a limited opinion word set with the topic and through double propagation, one is able to form a more detailed opinion word set on a set of sentences. Double propagation is the back and forth functional process between the word set and topic as the word set updates itself. Some algorithms require set rules and thus are limited in what they can actually do and in what service they provide in providing updated opinion lists. Their algorithm only requires an initial word set (or opinion lexicon), which is updated through finding relations between the words in the set and the target word or vice versa. The algorithm is done on a word population such as a set of sentences or a paragraph.

Overall, I like what you've written so far. The content is interesting and comprehensive as far as I can tell. However, the wording in certain sections are too vague, making it hard to understand. I would focus on rewriting your draft so there aren't so many ambiguities.

April 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. TJRC (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 10 Peer Review

Hello Denmum,

This is an interesting article and I think you do a good job of explaining a complex topic in a way that is easy to understand. I think it would be helpful to add a bit more depth and explanation to Liu's concepts and work. You might even consider adding a few more subjects to this article, as I took a look at the page you are adding on to and it is very sparse. The existing page mentions Liu's work with coronavirus research, not sure if this is included in your bibliography but this would be very interesting to add if you are able. I think an article about Liu should cover the breadth of his body of work. Your sections on association rules and opinion lexicons are great, but it sounds like he had other research interests that you could include. Maybe you could even add information about his personal life and more biographical information since the existing page is lacking in this area. Also, I know it is a biographical article but I noticed you cite Liu's papers directly a lot in your bibliography, you might want to consider drawing from more of your secondary sources. The existing article does have a note to include more secondary sources.

I also noticed that the citations are only at the end of the paragraph. I think it is better to over cite than under cite so you might want to add citations for each claim.

Great job! Casademasa (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 10 Peer Review

I believe the lead section was preexisting from the original article and I think it does an adequate job of summarizing Bing Liu's career and field of expertise. I think the organization of the article flows well with the new additions that elaborate on association rule mining and sentiment analysis. The lead section does summarize this work and gives an idea of what to expect from the rest of the article. I think a bit more could be added to the lead section to give a more clear idea of what the rest of the article will be about to guide the reader. I think the academic section that comes right after the lead section flows really well because it goes into a summary of Bing Liu's work and what his general career path looks like. I think the sentence structure of the first few sentences could be improved to connect better and sound a bit more formal. But the section does give an effective and concise summary of Bing Liu's work. I think the two added sections gave a lot more clarity into his work and helps to understand what he does. I think the first section on association rules for prediction might be a bit difficult to follow for somebody with no background knowledge on data mining and computer science. So it might be helpful to add a bit more explanation of the basic ideas of association rule mining in order to allow more readers to understand his work deeply. But I think the sentiment analysis does a good job of allowing any reader to have a pretty good idea of Liu's work. The explanations for the definition of opinion lexicons and word targets really helped me understand what sentiment analysis is. I think there could also be more explanation if the article is intended to be understood by a general audience. But if the targetted audience is those who already have a good background understanding of data mining then I think that the current sections are quite detailed. I also found it helpful that citations were provided after each sentence so I know exactly what source to look for.

Thisismyusername31 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 8

Hi!

This is a really interesting article topic. I haven't heard of Bing Liu's research beforehand so it was a really interesting read. I don't have too much background knowledge on Liu's research topics, but it was still really interesting getting insight into his work. The topic I'm working on (data sanitization) is closely related to data mining so it was interesting to read about his research projects devoted to these topics. Since your work is adding on to an article, I can see why the sections in the draft are just extensions of what is already there. However, I think that the lead section for the orignial article is pretty short, so I think it could also be added on to along with the additional information on his research projects. The structure of what is going to be added is clear and effective in conveying Bing Liu's contributions. Although, I think that it could be helpful to start off the first paragraph detailing Liu's work before getting into the specific terminology so that the reader has an immediate connection between the topic and Liu's research. I think the article is going in a good direction and it'll definitely help improve on what is already on Wikipedia!

Thisismyusername31 (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

PLP Buddy Review (Week 11)

Hi Denmum,

Good work so far. The major suggestion I have for your draft this week is to expand it. Make it more detailed. You've done the hard work of reading through many academic articles. Now, share what you've learned with the rest of the Wikipedia community. For example, in your first paragraph, after "Liu and his collaborators described a new association rule-based classification algorithm that takes into account the relationship between items and the positive and negative classes," you can dive into what their research is. It's something "new" like you wrote -- what was before? How does this research fit into the other work being done in the field? (Of course, write all of this with a neutral, measured, unbiased perspective.)

Your first sentence can be cleaned up: "Association rule-based classification takes into account the relationships between each and all items in a dataset and the class into which one is trying to classify that item." You can simply do this by deleting "each and". Also, regarding the following sentence's start, "The basis," it is unclear what it is the basis of (association rule-based classification?). The "as per" in the last sentence of your first paragraph is awkward: "It then ranks the items as per which ones would be most likely to be in the positive class." You could re-word the sentence to fix this, like, "It then ranks the items according to their likelihood of being in the positive class" (or something like that).

Some suggestions for your second paragraph: 1) "The authors of that paper discuss" -- what paper? If you're focusing on a particular article, you should let the reader know what article you're referring to; 2) "and in what service they provide in providing updated opinion lists" -- the use of "provide" is a bit repetitive, but this can be fixed by deleting "in providing updated" and replacing it with ", such as updating" (or by mixing up your word choices); 3) "Their algorithm only requires an initial word set (or opinion lexicon)" -- no need to clarify what a word set is, as you already told the reader that it is the same thing as an opinion lexicon (the only time that would probably be necessary is if you have a longer article and would like to remind the reader).

Best of luck, Showtime oski (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 11 Peer Edit

Hey! I like what you have so far, I think it's a good start. However, I think you could definitely elaborate a little bit more. Specifically, I'd like you to maybe synthesize some of his works. As of right now, you have a lot of listed sources. While I definitely appreciate that you've done an extensively amount of research regarding finding Bing Liu's work, what I'm missing is what kind of work he is truly doing. Thus, I think if you elaborated on some of the content of the articles, that would be much appreciated. I know that you have the beginning/intro sections on his work, but I feel like it's not quite enough. Otherwise, I think you could connect some of what he is doing to other leaders in his field. How do his perspectives line up with other researchers? I think that would be a really interesting thing to address.

Overall, though, great work!

Redpandafan (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Week 11 Peer Review

Hey Denmum!

I still like what you have so far. I don't think you have implemented some of the changes I've suggested in previous peer edits, but that's fine since it's ultimately up to you. I'll just suggest them again in case you missed them or changed your mind.

I don't think this has been editted since I last did my peer review so I'll just reiterate and add on to what I said before.

Detailed Information to be added to Academic Research Portion

More info on association rules for prediction

Association rule based classification/prediction takes into account the relationships between each and all items in a dataset and the class into which one is trying to classify that item. The basis is that there are two classes, a positive class and a negative class, that one is trying to classify items into. (The grammar in this sentence is a bit wonky. I think you're trying to say that "there are two classes into which one classifies items" or something along those lines.) Some classification algorithms only check if a case/item is in the positive class, without understanding how much exactly the probability of it being in that class is. Liu and his collaborators described a new association rule based classification algorithm that takes into account the relationship between an item, two items, etc. and the positive and negative classes and gives each item a probability likelihood or scoring of being in the positive class or the negative class. (I would break up the previous sentence since it goes on too long) It then ranks the items as per which ones would be most likely to be in the positive class. (I would avoid using so many slashes in this paragraph. The meaning of a slash is sort of vague; you can't tell if it means "and" or "or". I would just use those two words instead so that what you're saying is more clear. Similarly, using "etc" is vague.)

More info on sentiment analysis/opinion mining (Similarly, I wouldn't use slashes. I would clarify what you mean here. Are the two phrases synonyms? Are they two completely different things that both belong in this paragraph?)

In a paper that Liu collaborated on, the authors study the relationship between opinion lexicons (word sets) and opinion targets (or topics on which there is an opinion). (I would reword this so that it's more clear who the "authors" are. I assume the authors are of that paper, but it's ambiguous the way you have worded it) They (right here it would useful if you clarified who "they" are and what "paper" you are talking about) discuss how their algorithm uses a limited opinion word set with the topic and through double propagation, one is able to form a more detailed opinion word set on a set of sentences. Double propagation is the back and forth functional process between the word set and topic as the word set updates itself. Some algorithms require set rules and thus are limited in what they can actually do and in what service they provide in providing updated opinion lists. Their algorithm only requires an initial word set (or opinion lexicon), which is updated through finding relations between the words in the set and the target word or vice versa. The algorithm is done on a word population such as a set of sentences or a paragraph.

The issues I had are mainly small things. You could easily get away without making these changes. Overall, the edits you plan to make seem like they fit well with the article you're editing. I'd mainly focus on making the wording in the article more coherent and introducing less ambiguity, like removing slashes unless they are really necessary since they just introduce vagueness.