Hi Jane, feel free to write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org with more details. We're very short on time so not sure we can partner on additional projects right now.
Hi Algon, thank you for the feedback.I'm not sure we have easy access to this metadata about the authors. Even if we did, this feature would probably not be very high on our priority list so I wouldn't expect it soon. Sorry!
Hey, Said. That's some great feedback! I'll share it with the team.We've been debating for some time about the best way to design this interaction (open a node as a graph). Your suggestions are great and we'll definitely experiment with them. Thank you!
Got it, thanks for the suggestions - we'll definitely brainstorm about this.
In the meantime, mouse-over shows an immediate preview of the title on the right side panel - hopefully that helps you use the graph.
Yes - these are probably our most requested features and are high in our list of features to add.
Really happy to hear that Adam!
Hey, thanks for the feedback. We're aware and there's much more work to be done. Added your comment to our list of things to do.
The problem with doing that is that paper titles are extremely long and clutter the graph too much, and if we only show a few words many nodes get the same title.
As an alternative suggestion: would showing the titles upon instant mouse-over satisfy your need?
Hey, glad you like the concept!
Sorry for the malfunction you experienced, it probably happened while we were overloaded. We've since increased the server count and limited the amount of graphs users can build in parallel.
An insider tip: you only have waiting times for graphs that have never been built before. If you return to the graph you've already built, it would be instantaneous.
Hey, glad to see you like the concept! We're actively working on improving the performance.
1. Everything is proprietary for now. After consideration we decided that this project is not well suited for open sourcing at this time.
2. Graphs are generated on the fly, but only for the first time. We keep the results in a cache so when another user asks for the same graph later, they'd get it instantly. Also, asking for graphs which are close in paper-space would also run faster.
3. We rely on external sources (like the Open Corpus by Semantic Scholar) for the citations database. Unfortunately, no database is perfect yet and sometimes citations are badly parsed.
4. First, we found this tool very fun for exploring paper-space in new domains. I sometimes just enter a keyword like "psychology" and start exploring. This gives me a nice overview of the type of titles and branches in new (for me) fields of science.
Second, I was surprised with how easy it was to recognize papers that are bridging multiple disciplines. Take a look at our example graph "deepfruits", for example: there are two obvious clusters. One shows deep learning papers mostly about detection. The other shows papers that describe how these techniques were applied in agriculture.
5. We've experimented early on and arrived to a conclusion that more than ~50 papers on the screen is too much clutter, and it's better to traverse paper-space by building more graphs. Avoiding specifics on purpose :)