skip to main content
10.1145/2957792.2957811acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesopencollabConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Predicting the quality of user contributions via LSTMs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 August 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

In many collaborative systems it is useful to automatically estimate the quality of new contributions; the estimates can be used for instance to flag contributions for review. To predict the quality of a contribution by a user, it is useful to take into account both the characteristics of the revision itself, and the past history of contributions by that user. In several approaches, the user's history is first summarized into a number of features, such as number of contributions, user reputation, time from previous revision, and so forth. These features are then passed along with features of the current revision to a machine-learning classifier, which outputs a prediction for the user contribution. The summarization step is used because the usual machine learning models, such as neural nets, SVMs, etc. rely on a fixed number of input features. We show in this paper that this manual selection of summarization features can be avoided by adopting machine-learning approaches that are able to cope with temporal sequences of input.

In particular, we show that Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) neural nets are able to process directly the variable-length history of a user's activity in the system, and produce an output that is highly predictive of the quality of the next contribution by the user. Our approach does not eliminate the process of feature selection, which is present in all machine learning. Rather, it eliminates the need for deciding which features from a user's past are most useful for predicting the future: we can simply pass to the machine-learning apparatus all the past, and let it come up with an estimate for the quality of the next contribution.

We present models combining LSTM and NN for predicting revision quality and show that the prediction accuracy attained is far superior to the one obtained using the NN alone. More interestingly, we also show that the prediction attained is superior to the one obtained using user reputation as a feature summarizing the quality of a user's past work. This can be explained by noting that the primary function of user reputation is to provide an incentive towards performing useful contributions, rather than to be a feature optimized for prediction of future contribution quality. We also show that the LSTM output changes in a natural way in response to user behavior, increasing when the user performs a sequence of good quality contributions, and decreasing when the user performs a sequence of low-quality work. The LSTM output for a user could thus be usefully shown to other users, alongside the user's reputation and other information.

References

  1. B. Adler, L. de Alfaro, and I. Pye. Detecting wikipedia vandalism using wikitrust. Notebook papers of CLEF, 1:22--23, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. B. T. Adler and L. De Alfaro. A content-driven reputation system for the Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 261--270. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. B. T. Adler, L. De Alfaro, S. M. Mola-Velasco, P. Rosso, and A. G. West. Wikipedia vandalism detection: Combining natural language, metadata, and reputation features. In Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing, pages 277--288. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. B. T. Adler, L. de Alfaro, I. Pye, and V. Raman. Measuring author contributions to the Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wikis, page 15. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S.-C. Chin, W. N. Street, P. Srinivasan, and D. Eichmann. Detecting Wikipedia vandalism with active learning and statistical language models. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Information credibility, pages 3--10. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. CLEF 2010 Labs and Workshops, M. Braschler, D. K. Harman, E. Pianta, and CLEF. Abstracts of the notebook papers. s. n.}, S. l., 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. G. De la Calzada and A. Dekhtyar. On measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles. In Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Information credibility, pages 11--18. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F. A. Gers, N. N. Schraudolph, and J. Schmidhuber. Learning precise timing with LSTM recurrent networks. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:115--143, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Graves. Supervised Sequence Labelling with Recurrent Neural Networks. PhD thesis, Technishe Universit\"at M\"unchen, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Graves, N. Jaitly, and A.-r. Mohamed. Hybrid speech recognition with deep bidirectional LSTM. In Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding (ASRU), 2013 IEEE Workshop on, pages 273--278. IEEE, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. A. Graves, M. Liwicki, S. FernAandez, R. Bertolami, H. Bunke, and J. Schmidhuber. A novel connectionist system for unconstrained handwriting recognition. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 31(5):855--868, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735--1780, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Hu, E.-P. Lim, A. Sun, H. W. Lauw, and B.-Q. Vuong. Measuring article quality in wikipedia: models and evaluation. In Proceedings of the sixteenth A CM conference on Conference on information and knowledge management, pages 243--252. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Javanmardi, D. W. McDonald, and C. V. Lopes. Vandalism detection in Wikipedia: a high-performing, feature-rich model and its reduction through Lasso. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, pages 82--90. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. MediaWiki. Mediawiki API, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. S. M. Mola-Velasco. Wikipedia Vandalism Detection Through Machine Learning: Feature Review and New Proposals: Lab Report for PAN at CLEF 2010. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1210.5560, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. Potthast, B. Stein, and R. Gerling. Automatic vandalism detection in Wikipedia. In Advances in Information Retrieval, pages 663--668. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. Smets, B. Goethals, and B. Verdonk. Automatic vandalism detection in Wikipedia: Towards a machine learning approach. In AAAI workshop on Wikipedia and artificial intelligence: An Evolving Synergy, pages 43--48, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. P. J. Werbos. Backpropagation through time: what it does and how to do it. Proceedings of the IEEE, 78(10):1550--1560, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. A. G. West, S. Kannan, and I. Lee. Detecting wikipedia vandalism via spatio-temporal analysis of revision metadata? In Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on System Security, pages 22--28. CM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Wikipedia. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. D. M. Wilkinson and B. A. Huberman. Cooperation and quality in wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on Wikis, pages 157--164. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. WÃűhner and R. Peters. Assessing the quality of Wikipedia articles with lifecycle based metrics. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration, page 16. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. M. D. Zeiler. ADADELTA: an adaptive learning rate method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.5701, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  1. Predicting the quality of user contributions via LSTMs

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      OpenSym '16: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Open Collaboration
      August 2016
      168 pages
      ISBN:9781450344517
      DOI:10.1145/2957792

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 August 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      OpenSym '16 Paper Acceptance Rate23of49submissions,47%Overall Acceptance Rate108of195submissions,55%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader