Subjective questions such as does neymar dive', or is clinton lying', or is trump a fascist', are popular queries to web search engines, as can be seen by autocompletion suggestions on Google, Yahoo and Bing. In the era of cognitive computing, beyond search, they could be handled as hypotheses issued for evaluation. Our vision is to leverage on unstructured data and metadata of the rich user-generated multimedia that is often shared as material evidence in favor or against hypotheses in social media platforms. In this paper we present two preliminary experiments along those lines and discuss challenges for a cognitive computing system that collects material evidence from user-generated multimedia towards aggregating it into some form of collective decision on the hypothesis.
. Propositional (yes no) questions are an important class of questions that are addressed by Q &A systems @cite_11 , but our understanding of hypotheses as a specific kind of propositional questions is an important distinction in the enormous scope of Q &A systems. Our focus is not on factoid-style questions, e.g., Was X born in year Y?.'' By hypotheses' we mean the more subjective questions that are too intriguing to be freely answered, requiring some compelling (material) evidence.
@cite_11
2250953687 2148488947 2134406267 2798836595
This paper investigates a solution to yes no question answering, which can be mapped to the task of determining the correctness of a given proposition. Generally it is hard to obtain explicit evidence to conclude a proposition is false from an information source, so we convert this task to a set of factoid-style questions and use an existing question answering system as a subsystem. By aggregating the answers and confidence values from a factoid-style question answering system we can determine the correctness of the entire proposition or the substitutions that make the proposition false. We evaluated the system on multiple-choice questions from a university admission test on world history, and found it to be highly accurate. Question Answering (QA) is retrieving answers to natural language questions from a collection of documents rather than retrieving relevant documents containing the keywords of the query which is performed by search engines. What a user usually wants is often a precise answer to a question. For example, given the question “Who won the nobel prize in peace in 2006?” what a user really wants is the answer “Dr. Muhammad Yunus”, in stead of reading through lots of documents that contain the words “win”, “nobel”,“prize”, “peace” and “2006” etc. This means that question answering systems will possibly be integral to the next generation of search engines. The Text Retrieval Conference, TREC1 QA track is the major large-scale evaluation environment for open-domain question answering systems. The questions in the TREC-2007 QA track are clustered by target, which is the overall theme or topic of the questions. The track has three types of questions: 1. factoid that require only one correct response, 2. list that require a non redundant list of correct responses and 3. other questions that require a non redundant list of facts about the target that has not already been discovered by a previous answer. We took the approach of designing a question answering system that is based on document tagging and question classification. Question classification extracts useful information (i.e. answer type) from the question about how to answer the question. Document tagging extracts useful information from the documents, which will be used in finding the answer to the question. We used different available tools to tag the documents. Our system classifies the questions using manually developed rules. Question answering (Q&A) websites are now large repositories of valuable knowledge. While most Q&A sites were initially aimed at providing useful answers to the question asker, there has been a marked shift towards question answering as a community-driven knowledge creation process whose end product can be of enduring value to a broad audience. As part of this shift, specific expertise and deep knowledge of the subject at hand have become increasingly important, and many Q&A sites employ voting and reputation mechanisms as centerpieces of their design to help users identify the trustworthiness and accuracy of the content. To better understand this shift in focus from one-off answers to a group knowledge-creation process, we consider a question together with its entire set of corresponding answers as our fundamental unit of analysis, in contrast with the focus on individual question-answer pairs that characterized previous work. Our investigation considers the dynamics of the community activity that shapes the set of answers, both how answers and voters arrive over time and how this influences the eventual outcome. For example, we observe significant assortativity in the reputations of co-answerers, relationships between reputation and answer speed, and that the probability of an answer being chosen as the best one strongly depends on temporal characteristics of answer arrivals. We then show that our understanding of such properties is naturally applicable to predicting several important quantities, including the long-term value of the question and its answers, as well as whether a question requires a better answer. Finally, we discuss the implications of these results for the design of Q&A sites. Extractive reading comprehension systems can often locate the correct answer to a question in a context document, but they also tend to make unreliable guesses on questions for which the correct answer is not stated in the context. Existing datasets either focus exclusively on answerable questions, or use automatically generated unanswerable questions that are easy to identify. To address these weaknesses, we present SQuAD 2.0, the latest version of the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD). SQuAD 2.0 combines existing SQuAD data with over 50,000 unanswerable questions written adversarially by crowdworkers to look similar to answerable ones. To do well on SQuAD 2.0, systems must not only answer questions when possible, but also determine when no answer is supported by the paragraph and abstain from answering. SQuAD 2.0 is a challenging natural language understanding task for existing models: a strong neural system that gets 86 F1 on SQuAD 1.1 achieves only 66 F1 on SQuAD 2.0.