Predicting closed questions on community question answering sites using convolutional neural network

  • Pradeep Kumar RoyEmail author
  • Jyoti Prakash Singh
Original Article


Community questions answering sites receive a huge number of questions and answers everyday. It has been observed that a number of questions among them are marked as closed by the site moderators. Such questions increase overhead of the moderators and also create user dissatisfaction. This paper aims to predict whether a newly posted question would be marked as closed in the future or not and also give a tentative reason of being closed. Two models: (1) a baseline model based on traditional machine learning techniques and (2) deep learning models such as convolutional neural network (CNN) and long short-term memory (LSTM) network are used to classify a question into one of the five classes: (1) open, (2) off-topic, (3) not a real question, (4) too constructive and (5) too localized. The baseline model requires the handcrafted features and hence does not preserve semantics. However, CNN and LSTM networks are capable of preserving the semantics of question’s word and extracting the hidden features from the textual content using multiple hidden layers. The LSTM network performs better compared to CNN and traditional machine learning models. The proposed model can be used as an initial filter to screen the closed question at the time of posting, which reduced the overheads of site moderators. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that predicts the closed question along with the reason the question will be closed. This helps the questioner to modify the question before posting. The experimental results with the dataset of Stack Overflow prove the effectiveness of the proposed model.


Community question answering Closed questions CNN LSTM 



  1. 1.
    Agichtein E, Castillo C, Donato D, Gionis A, Mishne G (2008) Finding high-quality content in social media. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining. ACM, pp 183–194Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roy PK, Ahmad Z, Singh JP, Alryalat MAA, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK (2018) Finding and ranking high-quality answers in community question answering sites. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 19:53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ClosedQuestion (2018) Accessed 16 Feb 2018
  4. 4.
    Correa D, Sureka A (2013) Fit or unfit: analysis and prediction of ‘closed questions’ on stack overflow. In: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Online social networks. ACM, pp 201–212Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ahasanuzzaman M, Asaduzzaman M, Roy C K, Schneider KA (2016) Mining duplicate questions of stack overflow. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM 13th working conference on mining software repositories (MSR). IEEE, pp 402–412Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang Y, Lo D, Xia X, Sun J-L (2015) Multi-factor duplicate question detection in stack overflow. J Comput Sci Technol 30(5):981–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang WE, Sheng QZ, Lau JH, Abebe E, Ruan W (2018) Duplicate detection in programming question answering communities. ACM Trans Internet Technol (TOIT) 18(3):37Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 1097–1105Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J (1997) Long short-term memory. Neural Comput 9(8):1735–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeon J, Croft W B, Lee JH, Park S (2006) A framework to predict the quality of answers with non-textual features. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, pp 228–235Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blooma MJ, Chua AY, Goh DH-L (2008) A predictive framework for retrieving the best answer. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on applied computing. ACM, pp 1107–1111Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toba H, Ming Z-Y, Adriani M, Chua T-S (2014) Discovering high quality answers in community question answering archives using a hierarchy of classifiers. Inf Sci 261:101–115MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu H, Tian Z, Wu W, Chen E (2017) An unsupervised approach for low-quality answer detection in community question-answering. In: International conference on database systems for advanced applications. Springer, pp 85–101Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee CT, Rodrigues EM, Kazai G, Milic-Frayling N, Ignjatovic A (2009) Model for voter scoring and best answer selection in community Q&A services. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM international joint conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent technologies, 2009. WI-IAT’09, vol 1. IEEE, pp 116–123Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shah C, Pomerantz J (2010) Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA. In: Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM, pp 411–418Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu Z, Bernhard D, Gurevych I (2009) A multi-dimensional model for assessing the quality of answers in social Q&A sites. PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blooma MJ, Chua AY-K, Goh DH-L (2010) Selection of the best answer in CQA services. In: 2010 Seventh international conference on information technology: new generations (ITNG). IEEE, pp 534–539Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Srba I, Bielikova M (2016) Why is stack overflow failing? Preserving sustainability in community question answering. IEEE Softw 33(4):80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Correa D, Sureka A (2014) Chaff from the wheat: characterization and modeling of deleted questions on stack overflow. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web. ACM, pp 631–642Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ponzanelli L, Mocci A, Bacchelli A, Lanza M, Fullerton D (2014) Improving low quality stack overflow post detection. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME). IEEE, pp 541–544Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang WE, Sheng QZ, Shu Y, Nguyen VK (2017) Feature analysis for duplicate detection in programming QA communities. In: International conference on advanced data mining and applications. Springer, pp 623–638Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mizobuchi Y, Takayama K (2017) Two improvements to detect duplicates in stack overflow. In: 2017 IEEE 24th international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (SANER). IEEE, pp 563–564Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang WE, Sheng QZ, Lau JH, Abebe E (2017) Detecting duplicate posts in programming QA communities via latent semantics and association rules. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, pp 1221–1229Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoogeveen D, Bennett A, Li Y, Verspoor KM, Baldwin T (2018) Detecting misflagged duplicate questions in community question-answering archives. In: Twelfth international AAAI conference on web and social media, pp 112–120Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liang D, Zhang F, Zhang W, Zhang Q, Fu J, Peng M, Gui T, Huang X (2019) Adaptive multi-attention network incorporating answer information for duplicate question detection. In: Proceedings of the 42Nd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR’19, New York, NY, USA. ACM, pp 95–104Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abric D, Clark OE, Caminiti M, Gallaba K, McIntosh S (2019) Can duplicate questions on stack overflow benefit the software development community? In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on mining software repositories. IEEE Press, pp 230–234Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yang L, Bao S, Lin Q, Wu X, Han D, Su Z, Yu Y (2011) Analyzing and predicting not-answered questions in community-based question answering services. In: AAAI, vol 11, pp 1273–1278Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dror G, Maarek Y, Szpektor I (2013) Will my question be answered? Predicting “question answerability” in community question-answering sites. In: ECML/PKDD, vol 3, pp499–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Asaduzzaman M, Mashiyat AS, Roy CK, Schneider KA (2013) Answering questions about unanswered questions of stack overflow. In: 2013 10th IEEE working conference on mining software repositories (MSR). IEEE, pp 97–100Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu J, Shen H, Yu L (2017) Question quality analysis and prediction in community question answering services with coupled mutual reinforcement. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 10(2):286–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xia X, Lo D, Correa D, Sureka A, Shihab E (2016) It takes two to tango: deleted stack overflow question prediction with text and meta features. In: 2016 IEEE 40th annual computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC), vol 1. IEEE, pp 73–82Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rish I (2001) An empirical study of the naive Bayes classifier. In: IJCAI 2001 workshop on empirical methods in artificial intelligence, vol 3. IBM, pp 41–46Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Friedman JH (2001) Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat 29(5):1189–1232MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liaw A, Wiener M et al (2002) Classification and regression by randomforest. R News 2(3):18–22Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cover T, Hart P (1967) Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 13(1):21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yin Z, Kong D, Shao G, Ning X, Jin W, Wang JY (2016) A-optimal convolutional neural network. Neural Comput Appl 30(7):2295–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Becherer N, Pecarina J, Nykl S, Hopkinson K (2017) Improving optimization of convolutional neural networks through parameter fine-tuning. Neural Comput Appl 31(8):3469–3479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Singh JP, Irani S, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK, Saumya S, Roy PK (2017) Predicting the “helpfulness” of online consumer reviews. J Bus Res 70:346–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pennington J, Socher R, Manning CD (2014) Glove: global vectors for word representation. In: Empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp 1532–1543Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Severyn A, Moschitti A (2015) Learning to rank short text pairs with convolutional deep neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM, pp 373–382Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Xu B, Wang N, Chen T, Li M (2015) Empirical evaluation of rectified activations in convolutional network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00853
  43. 43.
    Collobert R, Weston J, Bottou L, Karlen M, Kavukcuoglu K, Kuksa P (2011) Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. J Mach Learn Res 12:2493–2537zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ruder S (2016) An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747
  45. 45.
    Pascanu R, Gulcehre C, Cho K, Bengio Y (2013) How to construct deep recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6026
  46. 46.
    Jiang K, Feng S, Song Q, Calix RA, Gupta M, Bernard GR (2018) Identifying tweets of personal health experience through word embedding and LSTM neural network. BMC Bioinform 19(8):210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee JY, Dernoncourt F (2016) Sequential short-text classification with recurrent and convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.03827
  48. 48.
    Zhou C, Sun C, Liu Z, Lau F (2015) A C-LSTM neural network for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.08630
  49. 49.
    Hua Y, Zhao Z, Li R, Chen X, Liu Z, Zhang H (2019) Deep learning with long short-term memory for time series prediction. IEEE Commun Mag 57:114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Glorot X, Bordes A, Bengio Y (2011) Deep sparse rectifier neural networks. In: Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pp 315–323Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP (2002) Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J Artif Intell Res 16:321–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chall JS, Dale E (1995) Manual for use of the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Brookline Books, BrooklineGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Technical report, DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringNational Institute of Technology PatnaPatnaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyVellore Institute of TechnologyVelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations