Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Anna Eigenmann

dblp:242/8963 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Question answering and dialogue systems · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Natural language and speech › Question answering and dialogue systems
answer re-ranking
0.412019
RankQA: Neural Question Answering with Answer Re-Ranking · ACL (1) 2019
Information retrieval › document retrieval
passage retrieval
0.112019
RankQA: Neural Question Answering with Answer Re-Ranking · ACL (1) 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

neural machine comprehension · 0.8feature fusion · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 RankQA: Neural Question Answering with Answer Re-Ranking
abstract
The conventional paradigm in neural question answering (QA) for narrative content is limited to a two-stage process: first, relevant text passages are retrieved and, subsequently, a neural network for machine comprehension extracts the likeliest answer.However, both stages are largely isolated in the status quo and, hence, information from the two phases is never properly fused.In contrast, this work proposes RankQA 1 : RankQA extends the conventional two-stage process in neural QA with a third stage that performs an additional answer reranking.The re-ranking leverages different features that are directly extracted from the QA pipeline, i. e., a combination of retrieval and comprehension features.While our intentionally simple design allows for an efficient, data-sparse estimation, it nevertheless outperforms more complex QA systems by a significant margin: in fact, RankQA achieves stateof-the-art performance on 3 out of 4 benchmark datasets.Furthermore, its performance is especially superior in settings where the size of the corpus is dynamic.Here the answer reranking provides an effective remedy against the underlying noise-information trade-off due to a variable corpus size.As a consequence, RankQA represents a novel, powerful, and thus challenging baseline for future research in content-based QA.
Bernhard Kratzwald, Anna Eigenmann, Stefan Feuerriegel
ACL (1)2