Enhancing semantic question similarity in Arabic using hybrid models and knowledge graph alignment


Abstract

Semantic question similarity (SQS) plays a crucial role in enhancing question answering (QA) systems, particularly for low-resource languages, such as Arabic, which present challenges due to complex morphology, semantic ambiguity, and limited linguistic resources. Despite prior efforts, knowledge graphs (KGs), which are structured networks representing entities and relationships, remain underutilized in improving semantic understanding and reducing ambiguity. Existing semantic similarity approaches have inherent trade-offs: KGs capture deep meaning but lack adaptability; corpus-based methods, such as word embeddings, rely on statistical patterns without deep semantic understanding; and deep learning models efficiently perform but lack interpretability. In addressing these limitations, this study proposes a hybrid SQS model that integrates KG embeddings with AraBERT embeddings to enrich the semantic representation. The model utilizes a bidirectional long short-term memory network with an attention mechanism to predict question similarity, leveraging the strengths of each approach while mitigating their individual shortcomings. Furthermore, we align LughaNet (a variant of Arabic WordNet) with Wikidata using the similarity flooding algorithm to enhance KG-based semantic representations, creating a comprehensive and large-scale Arabic KG. Experimental evaluation on an augmented Mawdoo3 dataset demonstrates that our approach achieves an F1 score of 93.88%, outperforming state-of-the-art benchmarks, including GPT-based models. These findings confirm the effectiveness of hybrid models in capturing structured and contextual semantic relationships, advancing Arabic natural language processing research. Additionally, this study introduces a large enriched Arabic KG, providing a valuable linguistic resource that lays the foundation for future advancements in low-resource language processing, with direct applications in automated QA systems, intelligent search, and recommendation engines.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].