RECORD
A Survey on Expert Recommendation in Community Question Answering
Social and Information Networks · Submitted 15 Jul 2018
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim These methods all have their issues that need to be resolved before the advantages of expert recommendation can be fully embraced.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Community question answering (CQA) represents the type of Web applications where people can exchange knowledge via asking and answering questions. One significant challenge of most real-world CQA systems is the lack of effective matching between questions and the potential good answerers, which adversely affects the efficient knowledge acquisition and circulation. On the one hand, a requester might experience many low-quality answers without receiving a quality response in a brief time, on the other hand, an answerer might face numerous new questions without being able to identify their questions of interest quickly. Under this situation, expert recommendation emerges as a promising technique to address the above issues. Instead of passively waiting for users to browse and find their questions of interest, an expert recommendation method raises the attention of users to the appropriate questions actively and promptly. The past few years have witnessed considerable efforts that address the expert recommendation problem from different perspectives. These methods all have their issues that need to be resolved before the advantages of expert recommendation can be fully embraced. In this survey, we first present an overview of the research efforts and state-of-the-art techniques for the expert recommendation in CQA. We next summarize and compare the existing methods concerning their advantages and shortcomings, followed by discussing the open issues and future research directions.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Community question answering (CQA) represents the type of Web applications where people can exchange knowledge via asking and answering questions. | background 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s1 | One significant challenge of most real-world CQA systems is the lack of effective matching between questions and the potential good answerers, which adversely affects the efficient knowledge acquisition and circulation. | background 0.94 | 0.07 | 0.04 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | On the one hand, a requester might experience many low-quality answers without receiving a quality response in a brief time, on the other hand, an answerer might face numerous new questions without being able to identify their questions of interest quickly. | background 0.97 | 0.05 | 0.02 | asserted 0.54 |
| s3 | Under this situation, expert recommendation emerges as a promising technique to address the above issues. | background 0.93 | 0.06 | 0.10 | hedged possibility 0.55 |
| s4 | Instead of passively waiting for users to browse and find their questions of interest, an expert recommendation method raises the attention of users to the appropriate questions actively and promptly. | background 0.85 | 0.05 | 0.07 | asserted 0.99 |
| s5 | The past few years have witnessed considerable efforts that address the expert recommendation problem from different perspectives. | background 0.98 | 0.05 | 0.03 | asserted 1.00 |
| s6 | These methods all have their issues that need to be resolved before the advantages of expert recommendation can be fully embraced. | gap 0.72 | 0.12 | 0.11 | asserted 1.00 |
| s7 | In this survey, we first present an overview of the research efforts and state-of-the-art techniques for the expert recommendation in CQA. | contribution 1.00 | 0.79 | 0.06 | asserted 0.90 |
| s8 | We next summarize and compare the existing methods concerning their advantages and shortcomings, followed by discussing the open issues and future research directions. | contribution 0.97 | 0.85 | 0.09 | asserted 0.80 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
Community question answering (CQA) represents the type of Web applications where people can exchange knowledge via asking and answering questions. One significant challenge of most real-world CQA systems is the lack of effective matching between questions and the potential good answerers, which adversely affects the efficient knowledge acquisition and circulation. On the one hand, a requester might experience many low-quality answers without receiving a quality response in a brief time, on the other hand, an answerer might face numerous new questions without being able to identify their questions of interest quickly. Under this situation, expert recommendation emerges as a promising technique to address the above issues. Instead of passively waiting for users to browse and find their questions of interest, an expert recommendation method raises the attention of users to the appropriate questions actively and promptly. The past few years have witnessed considerable efforts that address the expert recommendation problem from different perspectives. These methods all have their issues that need to be resolved before the advantages of expert recommendation can be fully embraced. In this survey, we first present an overview of the research efforts and state-of-the-art techniques for the expert recommendation in CQA. We next summarize and compare the existing methods concerning their advantages and shortcomings, followed by discussing the open issues and future research directions.
Human review
How the literature uses it
What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.