Complex Question Answering: Unsupervised Learning Approaches and Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex questions that require inferencing and synthesizing information from multiple documents can be seen as a kind of topic-oriented, informative multi-document summarization where the goal is to produce a single text as a compressed version of a set of documents with a minimum loss of relevant information. In this paper, we experiment with one empirical method and two unsupervised statistical machine learning techniques: K-means and Expectation Maximization (EM), for computing relative importance of the sentences. We compare the results of these approaches. Our experiments show that the empirical approach outperforms the other two techniques and EM performs better than K-means. However, the performance of these approaches depends entirely on the feature set used and the weighting of these features. In order to measure the importance and relevance to the user query we extract different kinds of features (i.e. lexical, lexical semantic, cosine similarity, basic element, tree kernel based syntactic and shallow-semantic) for each of the document sentences. We use a local search technique to learn the weights of the features. To the best of our knowledge, no study has used tree kernel functions to encode syntactic/semantic information for more complex tasks such as computing the relatedness between the query sentences and the document sentences in order to generate query-focused summaries (or answers to complex questions). For each of our methods of generating summaries (i.e. empirical, K-means and EM) we show the effects of syntactic and shallow-semantic features over the bag-of-words (BOW) features. 1.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".