Exploiting redundancy in question answering
Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
On the MSE robustness of batching estimators
Proceedings of the 33nd conference on Winter simulation
SVM answer selection for open-domain question answering
COLING '02 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Computational linguistics - Volume 1
Is it the right answer?: exploiting web redundancy for Answer Validation
ACL '02 Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
A noisy-channel approach to question answering
ACL '03 Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - Volume 1
Formal models for expert finding in enterprise corpora
SIGIR '06 Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
Chinese named entity recognition based on multiple features
HLT '05 Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
A Survey of Cloud Platforms and Their Future
ICCSA '09 Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications: Part I
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Conventional question answering (QA) techniques independently process candidate-bearing snippets to select an exact answer to a question from candidate answers. This paper presents two novel ways of utilizing redundancy in candidate-bearing snippets to help select an exact answer to a question in our Web QA system, i.e., cluster-based language model (CLM-M) and unsupervised SVM classifier (U-SVM) techniques. The comparative experiments demonstrate that the proposed methods significantly outperform the language model-based (LM-M) and supervised SVM-based (S-SVM) techniques that do not utilize this redundancy in the candidate-bearing snippets. Using the CLM-M, the top_1 score is increased from 36.03% (LM-M) to 46.96%; and the top_1 improvement in the U-SVM over the S-SVM is about 23%. Moreover, a cross-model comparison shows that the performance ranking of these models is: U-SVM CLM-LM LM-M S-SVM R-M (the retrieval-based model).