Cited by 52Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingSpeech and dialogue systems

Automatic Chinese Factual Question Generation

Liu, Ming, Rus, Vasile, Liu, Li·2017·IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies

Abstract

Question generation is an emerging research area of artificial intelligence in education. Question authoring tools are important in educational technologies, e.g., intelligent tutoring systems, as well as in dialogue systems. Approaches to generate factual questions, i.e., questions that have concrete answers, mainly make use of the syntactical and semantic information in a declarative sentence, which is then transformed into questions. Recently, some research has been conducted to investigate Chinese factual question generation with some limited success. Reported performance is poor due to unavoidable errors (e.g., sentence parsing, name entity recognition, and rule-based question transformation errors) and the complexity of long Chinese sentences. This article introduces a novel Chinese question generation system based on three stages, sentence simplification, question generation and ranking, to address the challenge of automatically generating factual questions in Chinese. The proposed approach and system have been evaluated on sentences from the New Practical Chinese Reader corpus. Experimental results show that ranking improves more than 20 percentage of questions rated as acceptable by annotators, from 65 percent of all questions to 87 percent of the top ranked 25 percent questions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tlt.2016.2565477

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • With the support of natural language processing, recommendation could automatically create new themes, theories, and pedagogical contents as a response to learners' feedback, to help teachers save time and effort.

    “With the support of the natural language process, it could automatically create new themes, theories, and pedagogical contents as a response to learners' feedback, to help teachers save time and effort [31].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, M., Rus, V., & Liu, L.
Affiliations
  • Southwest University (CN)
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • Chongqing University (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
Published
2017-04-01
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
194-204
ISSN
1939-1382 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2376694580
Cited by
52
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61502397)
  • Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars
  • State Education Ministry
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (XDJK2014A002, XDJK2017C024, SWU114005, CQU903005203326)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
question ranking, sentence simplification, Chinese language processing, intelligent tutoring systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review