Community-Based Question Answering via Heterogeneous Social Network Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based question answering (cQA) sites have accumulated vast amount of questions and corresponding crowdsourced answers over time. How to efficiently share the underlying information and knowledge from reliable (usually highly-reputable) answerers has become an increasingly popular research topic. A major challenge in cQA tasks is the accurate matching of high-quality answers w.r.t given questions. Many of traditional approaches likely recommend corresponding answers merely depending on the content similarity between questions and answers, therefore suffer from the sparsity bottleneck of cQA data. In this paper, we propose a novel framework which encodes not only the contents of question-answer(Q-A) but also the social interaction cues in the community to boost the cQA tasks. More specifically, our framework collaboratively utilizes the rich interaction among questions, answers and answerers to learn the relative quality rank of different answers w.r.t a same question. Moreover, the information in heterogeneous social networks is comprehensively employed to enhance the quality of question-answering (QA) matching by our deep random walk learning framework. Extensive experiments on a large-scale dataset from a real world cQA site show that leveraging the heterogeneous social information indeed achieves better performance than other state-of-the-art cQA methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".