Cited by 57Speech and dialogue systemsInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic Modeling

ISEEQ: Information Seeking Question Generation using Dynamic Meta-Information Retrieval and Knowledge Graphs

Open access
Gaur, Manas, Gunaratna, Kalpa, Srinivasan, Vijay, Jin, Hongxia·2022·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Conversational Information Seeking (CIS) is a relatively new research area within conversational AI that attempts to seek information from end-users in order to understand and satisfy the users' needs. If realized, such a CIS system has far-reaching benefits in the real world; for example, CIS systems can assist clinicians in pre-screening or triaging patients in healthcare. A key open sub-problem in CIS that remains unaddressed in the literature is generating Information Seeking Questions (ISQs) based on a short initial query from the end-user. To address this open problem, we propose Information SEEking Question generator (ISEEQ), a novel approach for generating ISQs from just a short user query, given a large text corpus relevant to the user query. Firstly, ISEEQ uses a knowledge graph to enrich the user query. Secondly, ISEEQ uses the knowledge-enriched query to retrieve relevant context passages to ask coherent ISQs adhering to a conceptual flow. Thirdly, ISEEQ introduces a new deep generative-adversarial reinforcement learning-based approach for generating ISQs. We show that ISEEQ can generate high-quality ISQs to promote the development of CIS agents. ISEEQ significantly outperforms comparable baselines on five ISQ evaluation metrics across four datasets having user queries from diverse domains. Further, we argue that ISEEQ is transferable across domains for generating ISQs, as it shows the acceptable performance when trained and tested on different pairs of domains. A qualitative human evaluation confirms that ISEEQ generated ISQs are comparable in quality to human-generated questions, and it outperformed the best comparable baseline.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v36i10.21312

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Validated expanded queries typically exhibit higher reliability.

    “Validated expanded queries typically exhibit higher reliability [93].”

    From Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey (2023) · cites this paper as [93]

    The Evaluation and Results section (p. 5) reports performance gains from semantic query expansion and says it helps generate questions that better match ground truth. The paper does not establish that validated expanded queries typically have higher reliability; its reported outcomes concern retrieval and question-generation performance, not reliability after validation. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. [Aliannejadi et al. 2019] Aliannejadi, M.; Zamani, H.; Crestani, F.; and Croft, W. B. 2019. Asking clarifying questions in open-domain information-seeking conversations. In ACM SIGIR .
  2. [Cho et al. 2021] Cho, W. S.; Zhang, Y.; Rao, S.; Celikyilmaz, A.; Xiong, C.; Gao, J.; Wang, M.; and Dolan, W. B. 2021. Contrastive multi-document question generation. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , 12-30.
  3. [Choi et al. 2018] Choi, E.; He, H.; Iyyer, M.; Yatskar, M.; Yih, W.-t.; Choi, Y.; Liang, P.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2018. Quac: Question answering in context. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2174-2184.
  4. [Clark and Manning 2016] Clark, K., and Manning, C. D. 2016. Improving coreference resolution by learning entitylevel distributed representations. In Proc. ACL .
  5. [Cohen, Yang, and Croft 2018] Cohen, D.; Yang, L.; and Croft, W. B. 2018. Wikipassageqa: A benchmark collection for research on non-factoid answer passage retrieval. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research &Development in Information Retrieval , 1165-1168.
  6. [Dalton et al. 2020] Dalton, J.; Xiong, C.; Kumar, V.; and Callan, J. 2020. Cast-19: A dataset for conversational information seeking. In Proc. of SIGIR .
  7. [Gao et al. 2020] Gao, Y.; Wu, C.-S.; Li, J.; Joty, S.; Hoi, S. C.; Xiong, C.; King, I.; and Lyu, M. 2020. Discern: Discourse-aware entailment reasoning network for conversational machine reading. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , 2439-2449.
  8. [Gopalakrishnan et al. 2019] Gopalakrishnan, K.; Hedayatnia, B.; Chen, Q.; Gottardi, A.; Kwatra, S.; Venkatesh, A.; Gabriel, R.; and Hakkani-T¨ ur, D. 2019. Topical-Chat: Towards Knowledge-Grounded Open-Domain Conversations. In Proc. Interspeech 2019 .
  9. [Gunaratna et al. 2017] Gunaratna, K.; Yazdavar, A. H.; Thirunarayan, K.; Sheth, A.; and Cheng, G. 2017. Relatedness-based multi-entity summarization. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 1060-1066.
  10. [Guu et al. 2020] Guu, K.; Lee, K.; Tung, Z.; Pasupat, P.; and Chang, M.-W. 2020. Realm: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08909 . · arXiv
  11. [Kitaev and Klein 2018] Kitaev, N., and Klein, D. 2018. Constituency parsing with a self-attentive encoder. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , 26762686.
  12. [Kumar and Callan 2020] Kumar, V., and Callan, J. 2020. Making information seeking easier: An improved pipeline for conversational search. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings , 3971-3980.
  13. [Kusner et al. 2015] Kusner, M.; Sun, Y.; Kolkin, N.; and Weinberger, K. 2015. From word embeddings to document distances. In International conference on machine learning , 957-966. PMLR.
  14. [Lewis et al. 2020] Lewis, P.; Perez, E.; Piktus, A.; Petroni, F.; Karpukhin, V.; Goyal, N.; K¨ uttler, H.; Lewis, M.; Yih, W.-t.; Rockt¨ aschel, T.; et al. 2020. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.11401 . · arXiv
  15. [Li et al. 2020] Li, S.; Huang, Z.; Cheng, G.; Kharlamov, E.; and Gunaratna, K. 2020. Enriching documents with compact, representative, relevant knowledge graphs. In IJCAI , 1748-1754.
  16. [Li et al. 2021] Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Fei, Z.; Feng, Y .; and Zhou, J. 2021. Conversations are not flat: Modeling the dynamic information flow across dialogue utterances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02227 . · arXiv
  17. [Lin et al. 2020] Lin, S.-C.; Yang, J.-H.; Nogueira, R.; Tsai, M.-F.; Wang, C.-J.; and Lin, J. 2020. Conversational question reformulation via sequence-to-sequence architectures and pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01909 . · arXiv
  18. [Michael et al. 2018] Michael, J.; Stanovsky, G.; He, L.; Dagan, I.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2018. Crowdsourcing questionanswer meaning representations. In Proc. NAACL .
  19. [Pothirattanachaikul et al. 2020] Pothirattanachaikul, S.; Yamamoto, T.; Yamamoto, Y.; and Yoshikawa, M. 2020. Analyzing the effects of' people also ask' on search behaviors and beliefs. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media , 101-110.
  20. [Pyatkin et al. 2020] Pyatkin, V.; Klein, A.; Tsarfaty, R.; and Dagan, I. 2020. Qadiscourse-discourse relations as qa pairs: Representation, crowdsourcing and baselines. In Proc. EMNLP .
  21. [Qi et al. 2020] Qi, W.; Yan, Y.; Gong, Y.; Liu, D.; Duan, N.; Chen, J.; Zhang, R.; and Zhou, M. 2020. Prophetnet: Predicting future n-gram for sequence-to-sequence pre-training. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings , 2401-2410.
  22. [Radlinski and Craswell 2017] Radlinski, F., and Craswell, N. 2017. A theoretical framework for conversational search. In Proc. of CIKM .
  23. [Rao and Daum´ e III 2018] Rao, S., and Daum´ e III, H. 2018. Learning to ask good questions: Ranking clarification questions using neural expected value of perfect information. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , 2737-2746.
  24. [Reimers and Gurevych 2019] Reimers, N., and Gurevych, I. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) , 3982-3992.
  25. [Rodriguez et al. 2020] Rodriguez, P.; Crook, P. A.; Moon, S.; and Wang, Z. 2020. Information seeking in the spirit of learning: A dataset for conversational curiosity. In Proc. of EMNLP .
  26. [Sellam, Das, and Parikh 2020] Sellam, T.; Das, D.; and Parikh, A. 2020. Bleurt: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Proc. ACL .
  27. [Sheth et al. 2021] Sheth, A.; Gaur, M.; Roy, K.; and Faldu, K. 2021. Knowledge-intensive language understanding for explainable ai. IEEE Internet Computing 25(5):19-24.
  28. [Tarunesh, Aditya, and Choudhury 2021] Tarunesh, I.; Aditya, S.; and Choudhury, M. 2021. Trusting roberta over bert: Insights from checklisting the natural language inference task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07229 . · arXiv
  29. [Vakulenko, Kanoulas, and de Rijke 2021] Vakulenko, S.; Kanoulas, E.; and de Rijke, M. 2021. A large-scale analysis of mixed initiative in information-seeking dialogues for conversational search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07096 . · arXiv
  30. [Wolf et al. 2019] Wolf, T.; Debut, L.; Sanh, V.; Chaumond, J.; Delangue, C.; Moi, A.; Cistac, P.; Rault, T.; Louf, R.; Funtowicz, M.; et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771 . · arXiv
  31. [Wood et al. 2018] Wood, A.; Rodeghero, P.; Armaly, A.; and McMillan, C. 2018. Detecting speech act types in developer question/answer conversations during bug repair. In Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering , 491-502.
  32. Z.; and McMillan, C. 2020. Dialogue act classification for virtual agents for software engineers during debugging. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops , 462-469.
  33. [Yang et al. 2018] Yang, Z.; Qi, P.; Zhang, S.; Bengio, Y.; Cohen, W. W.; Salakhutdinov, R.; and Manning, C. D. 2018. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In EMNLP .
  34. [Zamani and Craswell 2020] Zamani, H., and Craswell, N. 2020. Macaw: An extensible conversational information seeking platform. In Proc. of ACM SIGIR .
  35. [Zamani et al. 2020] Zamani, H.; Dumais, S.; Craswell, N.; Bennett, P.; and Lueck, G. 2020. Generating clarifying questions for information retrieval. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 , 418-428.
  36. [Zhang and Bansal 2019] Zhang, S., and Bansal, M. 2019. Addressing semantic drift in question generation for semisupervised question answering. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) , 2495-2509.
  37. [Zhang et al. 2019] Zhang, T.; Kishore, V.; Wu, F.; Weinberger, K. Q.; and Artzi, Y. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In ICLR .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gaur, M., Gunaratna, K., Srinivasan, V., & Jin, H.
Affiliations
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • Samsung (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2022-06-28
Volume
36
Issue
10
Pages
10672-10680
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W4200629808
Cited by
57
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8
FWCI
7.47
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Samsung
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
knowledge graphs, question generation, domain transfer, chatbots, triage

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