Advertisement

Learning to Leverage Microblog Information for QA Retrieval

  • Jose HerreraEmail author
  • Barbara Poblete
  • Denis Parra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10772)

Abstract

Community Question Answering (cQA) sites have emerged as platforms designed specifically for the exchange of questions and answers among users. Although users tend to find good quality answers in cQA sites, they also engage in a significant volume of QA interactions in other platforms, such as microblog networking sites. This in part is explained because microblog platforms contain up-to-date information on current events, provide rapid information propagation, and have social trust.

Despite the potential of microblog platforms, such as Twitter, for automatic QA retrieval, how to leverage them for this task is not clear. There are unique characteristics that differentiate Twitter from traditional cQA platforms (e.g., short message length, low quality and noisy information), which do not allow to directly apply prior findings in the area. In this work, we address this problem by studying: (1) the feasibility of Twitter as a QA platform and (2) the discriminating features that identify relevant answers to a particular query. In particular, we create a document model at conversation-thread level, which enables us to aggregate microblog information, and set up a learning-to-rank framework, using factoid QA as a proxy task. Our experimental results show microblog data can indeed be used to perform QA retrieval effectively. We identify domain-specific features and combinations of those features that better account for improving QA ranking, achieving a MRR of 0.7795 (improving 62% over our baseline method). In addition, we provide evidence that our method allows to retrieve complex answers to non-factoid questions.

Keywords

Twitter Question Answering Learning-to-rank 

References

  1. 1.
    Burges, C., Shaked, T., Renshaw, E., Lazier, A., Deeds, M., Hamilton, N., Hullender, G.: Learning to rank using gradient descent. In: Proceedings of ICML 2005, pp. 89–96 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Büttcher, S., Clarke, C.L.A., Cormack, G.V.: Information Retrieval -Implementing and Evaluating Search Engines. MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duan, Y., Jiang, L., Qin, T., Zhou, M., Shum, H.Y.: An empirical study on learning to rank of Tweets. In: Proceedings of COLING 2010, pp. 295–303 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J.: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freund, Y., Iyer, R., Schapire, R.E., Singer, Y.: An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 4, 933–969 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman, J.H.: Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 29(5), 1189–1232 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrera, J., Poblete, B., Parra, D.: Retrieving relevant conversations for Q&A on Twitter. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGIR (Workshop of SPS) (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Honey, C., Herring, S.C.: Beyond microblogging: conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In: Proceedings of HICSS 2009, pp. 1–10 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., Tseng, B.: Why we Twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In: Proceedings of WebKDD/SNA-KDD 2007, pp. 56–65 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jurafsky, D., Martin, J.H.: Speech and Language Processing. Prentice Hall, Pearson Education International (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., Moon, S.: What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? In: Proceedings of WWW 2010, pp. 591–600 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, Z., Jansen, B.J.: A taxonomy for classifying questions asked in social question and answering. In: Proceedings of CHI EA 2015, pp. 1947–1952 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H.: Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J.: Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In: Proceedings of ICLR (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Molino, P., Aiello, L.M., Lops, P.: Social question answering: textual, user, and network features for best answer prediction. ACM TOIS 35, 4–40 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morris, M.R., Teevan, J., Panovich, K.: A comparison of information seeking using search engines and social networks. In: Proceedings of ICWSM 2010, pp. 23–26 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morris, M.R., Teevan, J., Panovich, K.: What do people ask their social networks, and why?: a survey study of status message Q&A behavior. In: Proceedings of CWSM 2010, pp. 1739–1748 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Owoputi, O., O’Connor, B., Dyer, C., Gimpel, K., Schneider, N., Smith, N.A.: Improved part-of-speech tagging for online conversational text with word clusters. In: Proceedings of ACL (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paul, S.A., Hong, L., Chi, E.H.: Is Twitter a good place for asking questions? a characterization study. In: Proceedings of CWSM 2010, pp. 578–581 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raban, D.R.: Self-presentation and the value of information in Q&A websites. JASIST 60(12), 2465–2473 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sriram, B.: Short text classification in Twitter to improve information filtering. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGIR 2010. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Surdeanu, M., Ciaramita, M., Zaragoza, H.: Learning to rank answers on large online QA collections. In: Proceedings of ACL 2008, pp. 719–727 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Surdeanu, M., Ciaramita, M., Zaragoza, H.: Learning to rank answers to non-factoid questions from web collections. Comput. Linguist. 37(2), 351–383 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu, Q., Burges, C.J.C., Svore, K.M., Gao, J.: Adapting boosting for information retrieval measures. Inf. Retrieval 13(3), 254–270 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang, L., Ai, Q., Spina, D., Chen, R.C., Pang, L., Croft, W.B., Guo, J., Scholer, F.: Beyond factoid QA-effective methods for non-factoid answer sentence retrieval. In: Proceedings of ECIR (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhao, Z., Mei, Q.: Questions about questions: an empirical analysis of information needs on Twitter. In: Proceedings of WWW 2013, pp. 1545–1556 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Department of Computer SciencePontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations