4.5 Article

Large-Scale Question Tagging via Joint Question-Topic Embedding Learning

期刊

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3380954

关键词

Question tagging; topic hierarchy; CQA; embedding learning

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61772310, U1936203, U1836216]
  2. Shandong Provincial Natural Science and Foundation [ZR2019JQ23]
  3. Innocation Teams in Colleges and Universities in Jinan [2018GXRC014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent years have witnessed a flourishing of community-driven question answering (cQA), like Yahoo! Answers and AnswerBag, where people can seek precise information. After 2010, some novel cQA systems, including Quora and Zhihu, gained momentum. Besides interactions, the latter enables users to label the questions with topic tags that highlight the key points conveyed in the questions. In this article, we shed light on automatically annotating a newly posted question with topic tags that are predefined and preorganized into a directed acyclic graph. To accomplish this task, we present an end-to-end deep interactive embedding model to jointly learn the embeddings of questions and topics by projecting them into the same space for a similarity measure. In particular, we first learn the embeddings of questions and topic tags by two deep parallel models. Thereinto, we regularize the embeddings of topic tags via fully exploring their hierarchical structures, which is able to alleviate the problem of imbalanced topic distribution. Thereafter, we interact each question embedding with the topic tag matrix, i.e., all the topic tag embeddings. Following that, a sigmoid cross-entropy loss is appended to reward the positive question-topic pairs and penalize the negative ones. To justify our model, we have conducted extensive experiments on an unprecedented large-scale social QA dataset obtained from Zhihu.com, and the experimental results demonstrate that our model achieves superior performance to several state-of-the-art baselines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据