This paper describes the SemEval–2016 Task 3 on Community Question Answer- ing, which we offered in English and Ara- bic. For English, we had three sub- tasks: Question–Comment Similarity (subtask A), Question–Question Similarity (B), and Question–External Comment Similarity (C). For Arabic, we had another subtask: Rerank the correct answers for a new question (D). Eighteen teams participated in the task, sub- mitting a total of 95 runs (38 primary and 57 contrastive) for the four subtasks. A variety of approaches and features were used by the participating systems to address the different subtasks, which are summarized in this paper. The best systems achieved an official score (MAP) of 79.19, 76.70, 55.41, and 45.83 in subtasks A, B, C, and D, respectively. These scores are significantly better than those for the baselines that we provided. For subtask A, the best system improved over the 2015 win- ner by 3 points absolute in terms of Accuracy.
SemEval-2016 Task 3: Community question answering / Nakov, Preslav; Màrquez, Lluís; Moschitti, Alessandro; Magdy, Walid; Mubarak, Hamdy; Freihat, Abed Alhakim; Glass, James; Randeree, Bilal. - ELETTRONICO. - (2016), pp. 525-545. (Intervento presentato al convegno 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval 2016 tenutosi a San Diego; United States nel 16-17 June, 2016) [10.18653/v1/s16-1083].
SemEval-2016 Task 3: Community question answering
Moschitti, Alessandro;Freihat, Abed Alhakim;
2016-01-01
Abstract
This paper describes the SemEval–2016 Task 3 on Community Question Answer- ing, which we offered in English and Ara- bic. For English, we had three sub- tasks: Question–Comment Similarity (subtask A), Question–Question Similarity (B), and Question–External Comment Similarity (C). For Arabic, we had another subtask: Rerank the correct answers for a new question (D). Eighteen teams participated in the task, sub- mitting a total of 95 runs (38 primary and 57 contrastive) for the four subtasks. A variety of approaches and features were used by the participating systems to address the different subtasks, which are summarized in this paper. The best systems achieved an official score (MAP) of 79.19, 76.70, 55.41, and 45.83 in subtasks A, B, C, and D, respectively. These scores are significantly better than those for the baselines that we provided. For subtask A, the best system improved over the 2015 win- ner by 3 points absolute in terms of Accuracy.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
2016_SemEval_Nakov_Task3_cQA.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (Publisher’s layout)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
412.33 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
412.33 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione