[vc_empty_space][vc_empty_space]
Question analysis for Indonesian comparative question
Saelan A.a, Purwarianti A.a, Widyantoro D.H.a
a School of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624529070653{padding-top: 30px !important;padding-bottom: 30px !important;}”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner layout=”boxed”][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″ css=”.vc_custom_1624695412187{border-right-width: 1px !important;border-right-color: #dddddd !important;border-right-style: solid !important;border-radius: 1px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Abstract” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]© Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd.Information seeking is one of human needs today. Comparing things using search engine surely take more times than search only one thing. In this paper, we analyzed comparative questions for comparative question answering system. Comparative question is a question that comparing two or more entities. We grouped comparative questions into 5 types: selection between mentioned entities, selection between unmentioned entities, selection between any entity, comparison, and yes or no question. Then we extracted 4 types of information from comparative questions: entity, aspect, comparison, and constraint. We built classifiers for classification task and information extraction task. Features used for classification task are bag of words, whether for information extraction, we used lexical, 2 previous and following words lexical, and previous label as features. We tried 2 scenarios: classification first and extraction first. For classification first, we used classification result as a feature for extraction. Otherwise, for extraction first, we used extraction result as features for classification. We found that the result would be better if we do extraction first before classification. For the extraction task, classification using SMO gave the best result (88.78%), while for classification, it is better to use naïve bayes (82.35%).[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Author keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]Bag of words,Classification results,Classification tasks,Human needs,Information seeking,Question analysis,Question answering systems[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Indexed keywords” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”Funding details” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_empty_space][megatron_heading title=”DOI” size=”size-sm” text_align=”text-left”][vc_column_text]https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/801/1/012077[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_column_text]Widget Plumx[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator css=”.vc_custom_1624528584150{padding-top: 25px !important;padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row]