AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (586.2 KB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Open Access

Truth Discovery with Memory Network

Luyang LiBing Qin( )Wenjing RenTing Liu
Research Center for Social Computing and Information Retrieval, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China.
Show Author Information

Abstract

Truth discovery aims to resolve conflicts among multiple sources and find the truth. Conventional methods for truth discovery mainly investigate the mutual effect between the reliability of sources and the credibility of statements. These methods use real numbers, which have a lower representation capability than vectors to represent the reliability. In addition, neural networks have not been used for truth discovery. In this work, we propose memory-network-based models to address truth discovery. Our proposed models use feedforward and feedback memory networks to learn the representation of the credibility of statements. Specifically, our models adopt a memory mechanism to learn the reliability of sources for truth prediction. The proposed models use categorical and continuous data during model learning by automatically assigning different weights to the loss function on the basis of their own effects. Experimental results show that our proposed models outperform state-of-the-art methods for truth discovery.

References

[1]
Zhu W. Han X., Zhu Z., Chen W., Zheng W., and Lu J., A comparative analysis on Weibo and Twitter, Tsinghua Sci. Technol., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2016.
[2]
Yin X., Han J., and Yu P. S., Truth discovery with multiple conflicting information providers on the web, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data Engineering, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 796-808, 2008.
[3]
Dong X. L., Berti-Equille L., and Srivastava D., Integrating conflicting data: The role of source dependence, Proceedings of the Vldb Endowment, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 550-561, 2009.
[4]
Galland A., Abiteboul S., Marian A., and Senellart P., Corroborating information from disagreeing views, in ACM International Conference on Web Search & Data Mining, 2010, pp. 131-140.
[5]
Poston R. S. and Speier C., Effective use of knowledge management systems: A process model of content ratings and credibility indicators, Mis Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 221-244, 2005.
[6]
Banerjee P. and Han H., Answer credibility: A language modeling approach to answer validation, in Human Language Technologies: Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Proceedings, 2009, pp. 157-160.
[7]
Olteanu A., Peshterliev S., Liu X., and Aberer K., Web credibility: Features exploration and credibility prediction, in European Conference on Advances in Information Retrieval, 2013, pp. 557-568.
[8]
Snow R., O’Connor B., Jurafsky D., and Ng A. Y., Cheap and fast—but is it good?: Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks, in EMNLP’08 Proceedings of the Conference on Empriical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2008.
[9]
Dong X. L., Saha B., and Srivastava D., Less is more: Selecting sources wisely for integration, Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 37-48, 2012.
[10]
Wang D., Kaplan L., Le H., and Abdelzaher T., On truth discovery in social sensing: A maximum likelihood estimation approach, in ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2012, pp. 233-244.
[11]
Zhao B., Rubinstein B. I. P., Gemmell J., and Han J., A bayesian approach to discovering truth from conflicting sources for data integration, Proceedings of the Vldb Endowment, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 550-561, 2012.
[12]
Li Q., Li Y., Gao J., Su L., Zhao B., Demirbas M., Fan W., and Han J., A confidence-aware approach for truth discovery on long-tail data, Proceedings of the Vldb Endowment, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 425-436, 2014.
[13]
Li Y., Gao J., Meng C., Li Q., Su L., Zhao B., Fan W., and Han J., A survey on truth discovery, ACM Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1-16, 2016.
[14]
Pasternack J. and Dan R., Knowing what to believe (when you already know something), in COLING’10 Proceedings of the 23rd, International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Beijing, China, 2010, pp. 877-885.
[15]
Li Q., Li Y., Gao J., Zhao B., Fan W., and Han J., Resolving conflicts in heterogeneous data by truth discovery and source reliability estimation, in Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 2014, pp. 1187-1198.
[16]
Collobert R., Weston J., Bottou L., Karlen M., Kavukcuoglu K., and Kuksa P., Natural language processing (almost) from scratch, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 12, pp. 2493-2537, 2011.
[17]
Turian J., Ratinov L., and Bengio Y., Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning, in Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010, pp. 384-394.
[18]
Socher R., Bauer J., Manning C. D., and Ng A. Y., Parsing with compositional vector grammars, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2013, pp. 455-465.
[19]
Mnih A. and Hinton G. E., A scalable hierarchical distributed language model, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2009, pp. 1081-1088.
[20]
Bengio Y., Ducharme R., Vincent P., and Janvin C., A neural probabilistic language model, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 3, pp. 1137-1155, 2003.
[21]
Socher R., Perelygin A., Wu J. Y., Chuang J., Manning C. D., Ng A. Y., and Potts C., Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2013, p. 1642.
[22]
Tang D., Wei F., Yang N., Zhou M., Liu T., and Qin B., Learning sentiment-specific word embedding for twitter sentiment classification, in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014, pp. 1555-1565.
[23]
Wang P., Xu B., Xu J., Tian G., Liu C. L., and Hao H., Semantic expansion using word embedding clustering and convolutional neural network for improving short text classification, Neurocomputing, vol. 174, pp. 806-814, 2016.
[24]
Mikolov T., Chen K., Corrado G., and Dean J., Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1301.3781, 2013.
[25]
Weston J., Chopra S., and Bordes A., Memory networks, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1410.3916, 2014.
[26]
Sukhbaatar S., Szlam A., Weston J., and Fergus R., End-to-end memory networks, in Advances in Neural Information Processing System 28 (NIPS 2015), 2015.
[27]
Tang D., Qin B., and Liu T., Aspect level sentiment classification with deep memory network, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1605.08900, 2016.
[28]
Li X., Dong X. L., Lyons K., Meng W., and Srivastava D., Truth finding on the deep web: Is the problem solved? Proceedings of the Vldb Endowment, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 97-108, 2012.
[29]
Zhao B. and Han J., A probabilistic model for estimating real-valued truth from conflicting sources, in Proc.of Intl. Workshop on Quality in Databases, 2012.
[30]
Pasternack J. and Roth D., Making better informed trust decisions with generalized fact-finding, in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2011.
[31]
Tang J., Qu M., Wang M., Zhang M., Yan J., and Mei Q., Line: Large-scale information network embedding, in International Conference on World Wide Web, 2015.
[32]
Kleinberg J. M., Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment, Journal of the ACM, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 604-632, 1999.
[33]
Pasternack J. and Dan R., Latent credibility analysis, in International Conference on World Wide Web, 2013, pp. 1009-1020.
Tsinghua Science and Technology
Pages 609-618
Cite this article:
Li L, Qin B, Ren W, et al. Truth Discovery with Memory Network. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 2017, 22(6): 609-618. https://doi.org/10.23919/TST.2017.8195344

507

Views

21

Downloads

13

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

13

Scopus

3

CSCD

Altmetrics

Received: 31 December 2016
Revised: 29 March 2017
Accepted: 21 April 2017
Published: 14 December 2017
© The author(s) 2017
Return