Question: What are the traditional methods to identifying important attributes?

Evidence:
raw_evidence: Many proposed approaches formulate the entity attribute ranking problem as a post processing step of automated attribute-value extraction. In BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF2 , Pasca et al. firstly extract potential class-attribute pairs using linguistically motivated patterns from unstructured text including query logs and query sessions, and then score the attributes using the Bayes model. In BIBREF3 , Rahul Rai proposed to identify product attributes from customer online reviews using part-of-speech(POS) tagging patterns, and to evaluate their importance with several different frequency metrics. In BIBREF4 , Lee et al. developed a system to extract concept-attribute pairs from multiple data sources, such as Probase, general web documents, query logs and external knowledge base, and aggregate the weights from different sources into one consistent typicality score using a Ranking SVM model. Those approaches typically suffer from the poor quality of the pattern rules, and the ranking process is used to identify relatively more precise attributes from all attribute candidates.
As for an already existing knowledge graph, there is plenty of work in literature dealing with ranking entities by relevance without or with a query. In BIBREF5 , Li et al. introduced the OntoRank algorithm for ranking the importance of semantic web objects at three levels of granularity: document, terms and RDF graphs. The algorithm is based on the rational surfer model, successfully used in the Swoogle semantic web search engine. In BIBREF6 , Hogan et al. presented an approach that adapted the well-known PageRank/HITS algorithms to semantic web data, which took advantage of property values to rank entities. In BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , authors also focused on ranking entities, sorting the semantic web resources based on importance, relevance and query length, and aggregating the features together with an overall ranking model.
raw_evidence: The existing co-occurrence methods do not suit our application scenario at all, since exact string matching is too strong a requirement and initial trial has shown its incompetency. In stead we implemented an improved version of their method based on TextRank as our baseline. In addition, we also tested multiple semantic matching algorithms for comparison with our chosen method.
TextRank: TextRank is a graph-based ranking model for text processing. BIBREF18 It is an unsupervised algorithm for keyword extraction. Since product attributes are usually the keywords in enquiries, we can compare these keywords with the category attributes and find the most important attributes. This method consists of three steps. The first step is to merge all enquiries under one category as an article. The second step is to extract the top 50 keywords for each category. The third step is to find the most important attributes by comparing top keywords with category attributes.
Word2vec BIBREF19 : We use the word vector trained by BIBREF19 as the distributed representation of words. Then we get the enquiry sentence representation and category attribute representation. Finally we collect the statistics about the matched attributes of each category, and select the most frequent attributes under the same category.
GloVe BIBREF20 : GloVe is a global log-bilinear regression model for the unsupervised learning of word representations, which utilizes the ratios of word-word co-occurrence probabilities. We use the GloVe method to train the distributed representation of words. And attribute selection procedure is the same as word2vec.

Answers:
automated attribute-value extraction, score the attributes using the Bayes model, evaluate their importance with several different frequency metrics, aggregate the weights from different sources into one consistent typicality score using a Ranking SVM model, OntoRank algorithm
TextRank, Word2vec BIBREF19, GloVe BIBREF20