IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0301696.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating and validating the Fine-Grained Question Subjectivity Dataset (FQSD): A new benchmark for enhanced automatic subjective question answering systems

Author

Listed:
  • Marzieh Babaali
  • Afsaneh Fatemi
  • Mohammad Ali Nematbakhsh

Abstract

In the domain of question subjectivity classification, there exists a need for detailed datasets that can foster advancements in Automatic Subjective Question Answering (ASQA) systems. Addressing the prevailing research gaps, this paper introduces the Fine-Grained Question Subjectivity Dataset (FQSD), which comprises 10,000 questions. The dataset distinguishes between subjective and objective questions and offers additional categorizations such as Subjective-types (Target, Attitude, Reason, Yes/No, None) and Comparison-form (Single, Comparative). Annotation reliability was confirmed via robust evaluation techniques, yielding a Fleiss’s Kappa score of 0.76 and Pearson correlation values up to 0.80 among three annotators. We benchmarked FQSD against existing datasets such as (Yu, Zha, and Chua 2012), SubjQA (Bjerva 2020), and ConvEx-DS (Hernandez-Bocanegra 2021). Our dataset excelled in scale, linguistic diversity, and syntactic complexity, establishing a new standard for future research. We employed visual methodologies to provide a nuanced understanding of the dataset and its classes. Utilizing transformer-based models like BERT, XLNET, and RoBERTa for validation, RoBERTa achieved an outstanding F1-score of 97%, confirming the dataset’s efficacy for the advanced subjectivity classification task. Furthermore, we utilized Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) to elucidate model decision-making, ensuring transparent and reliable model predictions in subjectivity classification tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Marzieh Babaali & Afsaneh Fatemi & Mohammad Ali Nematbakhsh, 2024. "Creating and validating the Fine-Grained Question Subjectivity Dataset (FQSD): A new benchmark for enhanced automatic subjective question answering systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-34, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0301696
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301696
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301696&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0301696?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevyn Collins‐Thompson & Jamie Callan, 2005. "Predicting reading difficulty with statistical language models," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(13), pages 1448-1462, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alina Evstigneeva & Mark Sidorovskiy, 2021. "Assessment of Clarity of Bank of Russia Monetary Policy Communication by Neural Network Approach," Russian Journal of Money and Finance, Bank of Russia, vol. 80(3), pages 3-33, September.
    2. Li, Feng, 2008. "Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 221-247, August.
    3. Kira R. Fabrizio & Eun-Hee Kim, 2019. "Reluctant Disclosure and Transparency: Evidence from Environmental Disclosures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1207-1231, November.
    4. Irani, Rustom M. & Oesch, David, 2013. "Monitoring and corporate disclosure: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 398-418.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0301696. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.