Cited by 15Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorNatural Language Processing Techniques

Generative Question Refinement with Deep Reinforcement Learning in Retrieval-based QA System

Open access
Liu, Ye, Zhang, Chenwei, Yan, Xiaohui, Chang, Yi, Yu, Philip S.·2019·Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

Abstract

In real-world question-answering (QA) systems, ill-formed questions, such as wrong words, ill word order and noisy expressions, are common and may prevent the QA systems from understanding and answering them accurately. In order to eliminate the effect of ill-formed questions, we approach the question refinement task and propose a unified model, QREFINE, to refine the ill-formed questions to well-formed question. The basic idea is to learn a Seq2Seq model to generate a new question from the original one. To improve the quality and retrieval performance of the generated questions, we make two major improvements: 1) To better encode the semantics of ill-formed questions, we enrich the representation of questions with character embedding and the recent proposed contextual word embedding such as BERT, besides the traditional context-free word embeddings; 2) To make it capable to generate desired questions, we train the model with deep reinforcement learning techniques that considers an appropriate wording of the generation as an immediate reward and the correlation between generated question and answer as time-delayed long-term rewards. Experimental results on real-world datasets show that the proposed QREFINE method can generate refined questions with more readability but fewer mistakes than the original questions provided by users. Moreover, the refined questions also significantly improve the accuracy of answer retrieval.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3357384.3358046

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 11 · Cited by 15

Authors
Liu, Y., Zhang, C., Yan, X., Chang, Y., & Yu, P. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
  • Huawei Technologies (China) (CN)
  • Jilin University (CN)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-11-03
Pages
1643-1652
ISSN
2155-0751 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2982817792
Cited by
15
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1909323, 1763325, 1626432, 1526499, 1930941)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
question generation, retrieval-based question answering, deep reinforcement learning, sequence-to-sequence models, BERT, character embeddings, long-term reward

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