of Attributes_unstructured Au should give a high score matching than the longer fragment. The result also will show how the scoring of fragments of the webpage is pretty
good approach than scoring and consider tho a whole context of webpage. Hence, firstly we only consider in the small size fragment.
In the topic “Country”, we can see actually the result pretty similar on different fragment size and different α value. After α value is 0.5 the MRR a little bit lower because the bag
of Au wider than previous α, so it cause a little bit decreasing of MRR result
MRR “Country”
40
Figure 4.4. MRR for topic “Country”
Figure 4. 4 shows that on the short fragment size 50 the result answer average similar and good in α = 0.1 – 0.3. For wider fragment number 7 and 10 the value decreased along
with the wider candidate Attribute_unstructured Au. Here is the simple example of our result:
Figure 4.5 The example of Score_Match and answer result in topic “Country”
We can see beside the passage that contain fragment from Data_unstructured discovery, we also calculate with Data_structured and give some suggestion answer. France is the
correct answer of the question and as follow the example result from Bing beta version
41
Figure 4.6 The example result from Bing beta version
Figure 4.7 The example result from Google
Next, the experiment for another topics.
MRR “Movie”
42
Figure 4.8. MRR “Movie”
The example result as follow:
Figure 4.9. The example of Score_Match and answer result in topic “Movie”
MRR “Book”
43
Figure 4.10. MRR “Book”
The example result as follow:
Figure 4.11. The example of Score_Match and answer result in topic “Book”
Those above the others result, on topic “Movie” and “Book”. The MRR value not really high but pretty good for this initial work that used shallow approach on Question
Analysis and Relevent Answer.
44
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Future Work
5.1 Conclusion
1. We have proposed Finding Structured and Unstructured features to improve a complex questions, and the preliminary work give a pretty good result, can
improve the search result answer of a complex question 2. Combining Structured retrieval approach into common documents retrieval can
improve the result of questions
5.2 Future Work
1. Improve Question Analysis so can handle many kinds of a complex questions 2. Improve the scoring measure
3. In the unstructured data, work on bigger unstructured data and not really related with structured data.
4. In the structured data, work on more complex structured data, muti table and and multi scheme.
45
References
1. Lin, C.J. and R.R. Liu. An analysis of multi-focus questions. 2008. 2. Li, G., et al. EASE: an effective 3-in-1 keyword search method for unstructured,
semi-structured and structured data. 2008: ACM New York, NY, USA. 3. Bovens, L. and W. Rabinowicz, Democratic answers to complex questions–an
epistemic perspective. Synthese, 2006. 1501: p. 131-153.
4. Harabagiu, S., F. Lacatusu, and A. Hickl. Answering complex questions with random walk models. 2006: ACM New York, NY, USA.
5. Harabagiu, S., et al., Answering complex, list and context questions with LCCs Question-Answering Server. NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION SP, 2002: p. 355-361.
6. Saquete, E., et al. Splitting complex temporal questions for question answering systems. 2004.
7. Bitton, D., et al. One platform for mining structured and unstructured data: dream or reality? 2006: VLDB Endowment.
8. Bhattacharya, I., S. Godbole, and A. Joshi. Structured Entity Identification and Document Categorization Two Task with One Joint Model. in KDD. 2008.
9. Chang, K.C.C., B. He, and Z. Zhang. Toward large scale integration: Building a metaquerier over databases on the web. 2005.
10. Madhavan, J., et al. Web-scale data integration: You can only afford to pay as you go. 2007.
11. Andrenucci, A. and E. Sneiders. Automated question answering: review of the main approaches. 2005.
12. Lin, J. The Web as a resource for question answering: Perspectives and challenges. 2002.
13. Hirschman, L. and R. Gaizauskas, Natural language question answering: The view from here. Natural Language Engineering, 2002. 704: p. 275-300.
14. Burger, J., et al., Issues, tasks and program structures to roadmap research in question answering QA. Document Understanding Conferences Roadmapping
Documents, 2001.
15. Voorhees, E., et al., TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. 2005: MIT Press.
16. Moldovan, D., et al., LCC tools for question answering. In TREC 2002 Proceedings, 2003.
17. Clarke, C.L.A. and E.L. Terra. Passage retrieval vs. document retrieval for factoid question answering. 2003: ACM New York, NY, USA.
18. Cui, H., et al., Question answering passage retrieval using dependency relations.
46
