skip to main content
10.1145/3357384.3358056acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Constrained Co-embedding Model for User Profiling in Question Answering Communities

Published:03 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we study the problem of user profiling in question answering communities. We address the problem by proposing a constrained co-embedding model (CCEM). CCEM jointly infers the embeddings of both users and words in question answering communities such that the similarities between users and words can be semantically measured. Our CCEM works with constraints which enforce the inferred embeddings of users and words subject to this criteria: given a question in the community, embeddings of users whose answers receive more votes are closer to the embeddings of the words occurring in these answers, compared to the embeddings of those whose answers receive less votes. Experiments on a Chinese dataset, Zhihu dataset, demonstrate that our proposed co-embedding algorithm outperforms state-of-the-art methods in the task of user profiling.

References

  1. H. Bai and H. Zhao. Deep enhanced representation for implicit discourse relation recognition. proceedings of COLING, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Balog, Bogers, Azzopardi, De Rijke, and Van Den Bosch]balog2007broadK. Balog, T. Bogers, L. Azzopardi, M. De Rijke, and A. Van Den Bosch. Broad expertise retrieval in sparse data environments. In Proceedings of SIGIR, pages 551--558. ACM, 2007 a .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Balog, De Rijke, et al.]balog2007determiningK. Balog, M. De Rijke, et al. Determining expert profiles (with an application to expert finding). In IJCAI, volume 7, pages 2657--2662, 2007 b .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. Latent dirichlet allocation. JMLR, 3 (Jan): 993--1022, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. R. Bowman, L. Vilnis, O. Vinyals, A. M. Dai, R. Jozefowicz, and S. Bengio. Generating sentences from a continuous space. proceedings of CONLL, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Y. Cen, X. Zou, J. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Zhou, and J. Tang. Representation learning for attributed multiplex heterogeneous network. Proceedings of SIGKDD, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. N. Craswell, A. P. de Vries, and I. Soboroff. Overview of the trec 2005 enterprise track. In Trec, volume 5, pages 1--7, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. W. B. Croft, D. Metzler, and T. Strohman. Search engines: Information retrieval in practice, volume 520. Addison-Wesley Reading, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. De Rijke, K. Balog, T. Bogers, and A. Van Den Bosch. On the evaluation of entity profiles. In CLEF, pages 94--99. Springer, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Dosovitskiy and T. Brox. Generating images with perceptual similarity metrics based on deep networks. In Advances in NIPS, pages 658--666, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Y. Fang and A. Godavarthy. Modeling the dynamics of personal expertise. In Proceedings of SIGIR, pages 1107--1110. ACM, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. L. Ginsca and A. Popescu. User profiling for answer quality assessment in q&a communities. In Proceedings of the 2013 workshop on Data-driven user behavioral modelling and mining from social media, pages 25--28. ACM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. X. Glorot, A. Bordes, and Y. Bengio. Deep sparse rectifier neural networks. In Proceedings of ASC, pages 315--323, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. A. Grover and J. Leskovec. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings of SIGKDD, pages 855--864. ACM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Herbrich. Large margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression. Advances in large margin classifiers, pages 115--132, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Joulin, E. Grave, P. Bojanowski, and T. Mikolov. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.01759, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. D. P. Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. proceedings of ICLR, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. D. P. Kingma, S. Mohamed, D. J. Rezende, and M. Welling. Semi-supervised learning with deep generative models. In Advances in NIPS, pages 3581--3589, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Y.-Y. Lai, J. Neville, and D. Goldwasser. Transconv: Relationship embedding in social networks. 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R. Lebret and R. Collobert. Word emdeddings through hellinger pca. proceedings of EACL, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. S. Liang. Dynamic user profiling for streams of short texts. In AAAI, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S. Liang. Collaborative, dynamic and diversified user profiling. In AAAI, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. S. Liang and M. de Rijke. Formal language models for finding groups of experts. Information Processing & Management, 52 (4): 529--549, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. S. Liang, E. Yilmaz, and E. Kanoulas. Dynamic clustering of streaming short documents. In Proceedings of SIGKDD, pages 995--1004. ACM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Liang, X. Zhang, Z. Ren, and E. Kanoulas. Dynamic embeddings for user profiling in twitter. In Proceedings of SIGKDD, pages 1764--1773, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. t al.(2019)Liang, Yilmaz, and Kanoulas]liang:collaboratively19S. Liang, E. Yilmaz, and E. Kanoulas. Collaboratively tracking interests for user clustering in streams of short texts. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 31 (2): 257--272, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Z. Meng, S. Liang, H. Bao, and X. Zhang. Co-embedding attributed networks. In Proceedings of WSDM, pages 393--401, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Y. Miao, L. Yu, and P. Blunsom. Neural variational inference for text processing. In ICML, pages 1727--1736, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mikolov, Chen, Corrado, and Dean]mikolov2013efficientT. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, and J. Dean. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. proceedings of ICLR, 2013 a .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mikolov, Sutskever, Chen, Corrado, and Dean]mikolov2013distributedT. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G. S. Corrado, and J. Dean. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in NIPS, pages 3111--3119, 2013 b .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J. Pennington, R. Socher, and C. Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pages 1532--1543, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. M. E. Peters, M. Neumann, M. Iyyer, M. Gardner, C. Clark, K. Lee, and L. Zettlemoyer. Deep contextualized word representations. proceedings of NAACL, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. J. Qiu, Y. Dong, H. Ma, J. Li, C. Wang, K. Wang, and J. Tang. Netsmf: Large-scale network embedding as sparse matrix factorization. In Proceedings of WWW, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. F. Riahi, Z. Zolaktaf, M. Shafiei, and E. Milios. Finding expert users in community question answering. In Proceedings of WWW, pages 791--798. ACM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. åg]rybak2014temporalJ. Rybak, K. Balog, and K. Nørvåg. Temporal expertise profiling. In ECIR, pages 540--546. Springer, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Y. Song, S. Shi, J. Li, and H. Zhang. Directional skip-gram: Explicitly distinguishing left and right context for word embeddings. In Proceedings of NAACL, pages 175--180, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. X. Sun, H. Wang, and W. Li. Fast online training with frequency-adaptive learning rates for chinese word segmentation and new word detection. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 253--262, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. J. F. Wiley. R Deep Learning Essentials. Packt Publishing Ltd, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Z.-M. Zhou, M. Lan, Z.-Y. Niu, and Y. Lu. Exploiting user profile information for answer ranking in cqa. In Proceedings of WWW, pages 767--774. ACM, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Constrained Co-embedding Model for User Profiling in Question Answering Communities

        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 Conferences
          CIKM '19: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
          November 2019
          3373 pages
          ISBN:9781450369763
          DOI:10.1145/3357384

          Copyright © 2019 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: 3 November 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CIKM '19 Paper Acceptance Rate202of1,031submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

          Upcoming Conference

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader