Papers › Asking the Crowd: Question Analysis, Evaluation and Generation for Open Discussion on...
Asking the Crowd: Question Analysis, Evaluation and Generation for Open Discussion on Online Forums
Zi Chai, Xinyu Xing, Xiaojun Wan, Bo Huang
Teaching machines to ask questions is an important yet challenging task. Most prior work focused on generating questions with fixed answers. As contents are highly limited by given answers, these questions are often not worth discussing. In this paper, we take the first step on teaching machines to ask open-answered questions from real-world news for open discussion (openQG). To generate high-qualified questions, effective ways for question evaluation are required. We take the perspective that the more answers a question receives, the better it is for open discussion, and analyze how language use affects the number of answers. Compared with other factors, e.g. topic and post time, linguistic factors keep our evaluation from being domain-specific. We carefully perform variable control on 11.5M questions from online forums to get a dataset, OQRanD, and further perform question analysis. Based on these conclusions, several models are built for question evaluation. For openQG task, we construct OQGenD, the first dataset as far as we know, and propose a model based on conditional generative adversarial networks and our question evaluation model. Experiments show that our model can generate questions with higher quality compared with commonly-used text generation methods.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Datasets
Introduced by this paper, per the archive.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections