Topic Independent Identification of Agreement and Disagreement in Social Media Dialogue

Research on the structure of dialogue has been hampered for years because large dialogue corpora have not been available. This has impacted the dialogue research community's ability to develop better theories, as well as good off the shelf tools for dialogue processing. Happily, an increasing amount of information and opinion exchange occur in natural dialogue in online forums, where people share their opinions about a vast range of topics. In particular we are interested in rejection in dialogue, also called disagreement and denial, where the size of available dialogue corpora, for the first time, offers an opportunity to empirically test theoretical accounts of the expression and inference of rejection in dialogue. In this paper, we test whether topic-independent features motivated by theoretical predictions can be used to recognize rejection in online forums in a topic independent way. Our results show that our theoretically motivated features achieve 66% accuracy, an improvement over a unigram baseline of an absolute 6%.Comment: @inproceedings{Misra2013TopicII, title={Topic Independent Identification of Agreement and Disagreement in Social Media Dialogue}, author={Amita Misra and Marilyn A. Walker}, booktitle={SIGDIAL Conference}, year={2013}

The impact of pretrained language models on negation and speculation detection in cross-lingual medical text: Comparative study

Background: Negation and speculation are critical elements in natural language processing (NLP)-related tasks, such as information extraction, as these phenomena change the truth value of a proposition. In the clinical narrative that is informal, these linguistic facts are used extensively with the objective of indicating hypotheses, impressions, or negative findings. Previous state-of-the-art approaches addressed negation and speculation detection tasks using rule-based methods, but in the last few years, models based on machine learning and deep learning exploiting morphological, syntactic, and semantic features represented as spare and dense vectors have emerged. However, although such methods of named entity recognition (NER) employ a broad set of features, they are limited to existing pretrained models for a specific domain or language. Objective: As a fundamental subsystem of any information extraction pipeline, a system for cross-lingual and domain-independent negation and speculation detection was introduced with special focus on the biomedical scientific literature and clinical narrative. In this work, detection of negation and speculation was considered as a sequence-labeling task where cues and the scopes of both phenomena are recognized as a sequence of nested labels recognized in a single step. Methods: We proposed the following two approaches for negation and speculation detection: (1) bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) and conditional random field using character, word, and sense embeddings to deal with the extraction of semantic, syntactic, and contextual patterns and (2) bidirectional encoder representations for transformers (BERT) with fine tuning for NER. Results: The approach was evaluated for English and Spanish languages on biomedical and review text, particularly with the BioScope corpus, IULA corpus, and SFU Spanish Review corpus, with F-measures of 86.6%, 85.0%, and 88.1%, respectively, for NeuroNER and 86.4%, 80.8%, and 91.7%, respectively, for BERT. Conclusions: These results show that these architectures perform considerably better than the previous rule-based and conventional machine learning-based systems. Moreover, our analysis results show that pretrained word embedding and particularly contextualized embedding for biomedical corpora help to understand complexities inherent to biomedical text.This work was supported by the Research Program of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Government of Spain (DeepEMR Project TIN2017-87548-C2-1-R)

Recognizing speculative language in research texts

This thesis studies the use of sequential supervised learning methods on two tasks related to the detection of hedging in scientific articles: those of hedge cue identification and hedge cue scope detection. Both tasks are addressed using a learning methodology that proposes the use of an iterative, error-based approach to improve classification performance, suggesting the incorporation of expert knowledge into the learning process through the use of knowledge rules. Results are promising: for the first task, we improved baseline results by 2.5 points in terms of F-score by incorporating cue cooccurence information, while for scope detection, the incorporation of syntax information and rules for syntax scope pruning allowed us to improve classification performance from an F-score of 0.712 to a final number of 0.835. Compared with state-of-the-art methods, the results are very competitive, suggesting that the approach to improving classifiers based only on the errors commited on a held out corpus could be successfully used in other, similar tasks. Additionaly, this thesis presents a class schema for representing sentence analysis in a unique structure, including the results of different linguistic analysis. This allows us to better manage the iterative process of classifier improvement, where different attribute sets for learning are used in each iteration. We also propose to store attributes in a relational model, instead of the traditional text-based structures, to facilitate learning data analysis and manipulation

Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse

The goal of argumentation mining, an evolving research field in computational linguistics, is to design methods capable of analyzing people's argumentation. In this article, we go beyond the state of the art in several ways. (i) We deal with actual Web data and take up the challenges given by the variety of registers, multiple domains, and unrestricted noisy user-generated Web discourse. (ii) We bridge the gap between normative argumentation theories and argumentation phenomena encountered in actual data by adapting an argumentation model tested in an extensive annotation study. (iii) We create a new gold standard corpus (90k tokens in 340 documents) and experiment with several machine learning methods to identify argument components. We offer the data, source codes, and annotation guidelines to the community under free licenses. Our findings show that argumentation mining in user-generated Web discourse is a feasible but challenging task.Comment: Cite as: Habernal, I. & Gurevych, I. (2017). Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse. Computational Linguistics 43(1), pp. 125-17

Detecting modification of biomedical events using a deep parsing approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This work describes a system for identifying event mentions in bio-molecular research abstracts that are either speculative (e.g. <it>analysis of IkappaBalpha phosphorylation</it>, where it is not specified whether phosphorylation did or did not occur) or negated (e.g. <it>inhibition of IkappaBalpha phosphorylation</it>, where phosphorylation did <it>not </it>occur). The data comes from a standard dataset created for the BioNLP 2009 Shared Task. The system uses a machine-learning approach, where the features used for classification are a combination of shallow features derived from the words of the sentences and more complex features based on the semantic outputs produced by a deep parser.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>To detect event modification, we use a Maximum Entropy learner with features extracted from the data relative to the trigger words of the events. The shallow features are bag-of-words features based on a small sliding context window of 3-4 tokens on either side of the trigger word. The deep parser features are derived from parses produced by the English Resource Grammar and the <it>RASP </it>parser. The outputs of these parsers are converted into the Minimal Recursion Semantics formalism, and from this, we extract features motivated by linguistics and the data itself. All of these features are combined to create training or test data for the machine learning algorithm.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over the test data, our methods produce approximately a 4% absolute increase in F-score for detection of event modification compared to a baseline based only on the shallow bag-of-words features.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results indicate that grammar-based techniques can enhance the accuracy of methods for detecting event modification.</p

Credibility analysis of textual claims with explainable evidence

Despite being a vast resource of valuable information, the Web has been polluted by the spread of false claims. Increasing hoaxes, fake news, and misleading information on the Web have given rise to many fact-checking websites that manually assess these doubtful claims. However, the rapid speed and large scale of misinformation spread have become the bottleneck for manual verification. This calls for credibility assessment tools that can automate this verification process. Prior works in this domain make strong assumptions about the structure of the claims and the communities where they are made. Most importantly, black-box techniques proposed in prior works lack the ability to explain why a certain statement is deemed credible or not. To address these limitations, this dissertation proposes a general framework for automated credibility assessment that does not make any assumption about the structure or origin of the claims. Specifically, we propose a feature-based model, which automatically retrieves relevant articles about the given claim and assesses its credibility by capturing the mutual interaction between the language style of the relevant articles, their stance towards the claim, and the trustworthiness of the underlying web sources. We further enhance our credibility assessment approach and propose a neural-network-based model. Unlike the feature-based model, this model does not rely on feature engineering and external lexicons. Both our models make their assessments interpretable by extracting explainable evidence from judiciously selected web sources. We utilize our models and develop a Web interface, CredEye, which enables users to automatically assess the credibility of a textual claim and dissect into the assessment by browsing through judiciously and automatically selected evidence snippets. In addition, we study the problem of stance classification and propose a neural-network-based model for predicting the stance of diverse user perspectives regarding the controversial claims. Given a controversial claim and a user comment, our stance classification model predicts whether the user comment is supporting or opposing the claim.Das Web ist eine riesige Quelle wertvoller Informationen, allerdings wurde es durch die Verbreitung von Falschmeldungen verschmutzt. Eine zunehmende Anzahl an Hoaxes, Falschmeldungen und irreführenden Informationen im Internet haben viele Websites hervorgebracht, auf denen die Fakten überprüft und zweifelhafte Behauptungen manuell bewertet werden. Die rasante Verbreitung großer Mengen von Fehlinformationen sind jedoch zum Engpass für die manuelle Überprüfung geworden. Dies erfordert Tools zur Bewertung der Glaubwürdigkeit, mit denen dieser Überprüfungsprozess automatisiert werden kann. In früheren Arbeiten in diesem Bereich werden starke Annahmen gemacht über die Struktur der Behauptungen und die Portale, in denen sie gepostet werden. Vor allem aber können die Black-Box-Techniken, die in früheren Arbeiten vorgeschlagen wurden, nicht erklären, warum eine bestimmte Aussage als glaubwürdig erachtet wird oder nicht. Um diesen Einschränkungen zu begegnen, wird in dieser Dissertation ein allgemeines Framework für die automatisierte Bewertung der Glaubwürdigkeit vorgeschlagen, bei dem keine Annahmen über die Struktur oder den Ursprung der Behauptungen gemacht werden. Insbesondere schlagen wir ein featurebasiertes Modell vor, das automatisch relevante Artikel zu einer bestimmten Behauptung abruft und deren Glaubwürdigkeit bewertet, indem die gegenseitige Interaktion zwischen dem Sprachstil der relevanten Artikel, ihre Haltung zur Behauptung und der Vertrauenswürdigkeit der zugrunde liegenden Quellen erfasst wird. Wir verbessern unseren Ansatz zur Bewertung der Glaubwürdigkeit weiter und schlagen ein auf neuronalen Netzen basierendes Modell vor. Im Gegensatz zum featurebasierten Modell ist dieses Modell nicht auf Feature-Engineering und externe Lexika angewiesen. Unsere beiden Modelle machen ihre Einschätzungen interpretierbar, indem sie erklärbare Beweise aus sorgfältig ausgewählten Webquellen extrahieren. Wir verwenden unsere Modelle zur Entwicklung eines Webinterfaces, CredEye, mit dem Benutzer die Glaubwürdigkeit einer Behauptung in Textform automatisch bewerten und verstehen können, indem sie automatisch ausgewählte Beweisstücke einsehen. Darüber hinaus untersuchen wir das Problem der Positionsklassifizierung und schlagen ein auf neuronalen Netzen basierendes Modell vor, um die Position verschiedener Benutzerperspektiven in Bezug auf die umstrittenen Behauptungen vorherzusagen. Bei einer kontroversen Behauptung und einem Benutzerkommentar sagt unser Einstufungsmodell voraus, ob der Benutzerkommentar die Behauptung unterstützt oder ablehnt