In this paper, we aim to extract commonsense knowledge to improve machine reading comprehension. We propose to represent relations implicitly by situating structured knowledge in a context instead of relying on a pre-defined set of relations, and we call it contextualized knowledge. Each piece of contextualized knowledge consists of a pair of interrelated verbal and nonverbal messages extracted from a script and the scene in which they occur as context to implicitly represent the relation between the verbal and nonverbal messages, which are originally conveyed by different modalities within the script. We propose a two-stage fine-tuning strategy to use the large-scale weakly-labeled data based on a single type of contextualized knowledge and employ a teacher-student paradigm to inject multiple types of contextualized knowledge into a student machine reader. Experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms a state-of-the-art baseline by a 4.3% improvement in accuracy on the machine reading comprehension dataset C^3, wherein most of the questions require unstated prior knowledge.
We revisit the classic information extraction problem of document-level template filling. We argue that sentence-level approaches are ill-suited to the task and introduce a generative transformer-based encoder-decoder framework that is designed to model context at the document level: it can make extraction decisions across sentence boundaries; is \emph{implicitly} aware of noun phrase coreference structure, and has the capacity to respect cross-role dependencies in the template structure. We evaluate our approach on the MUC-4 dataset, and show that our model performs substantially better than prior work. We also show that our modeling choices contribute to model performance, e.g., by implicitly capturing linguistic knowledge such as recognizing coreferent entity mentions. Our code for the evaluation script and models will be open-sourced at https://github.com/xinyadu/doc_event_entity for reproduction purposes.
Few works in the literature of event extraction have gone beyond individual sentences to make extraction decisions. This is problematic when the information needed to recognize an event argument is spread across multiple sentences. We argue that document-level event extraction is a difficult task since it requires a view of a larger context to determine which spans of text correspond to event role fillers. We first investigate how end-to-end neural sequence models (with pre-trained language model representations) perform on document-level role filler extraction, as well as how the length of context captured affects the models' performance. To dynamically aggregate information captured by neural representations learned at different levels of granularity (e.g., the sentence- and paragraph-level), we propose a novel multi-granularity reader. We evaluate our models on the MUC-4 event extraction dataset, and show that our best system performs substantially better than prior work. We also report findings on the relationship between context length and neural model performance on the task.
The problem of event extraction requires detecting the event trigger and extracting its corresponding arguments. Existing work in event argument extraction typically relies heavily on entity recognition as a preprocessing/concurrent step, causing the well-known problem of error propagation. To avoid this issue, we introduce a new paradigm for event extraction by formulating it as a question answering (QA) task, which extracts the event arguments in an end-to-end manner. Empirical results demonstrate that our framework outperforms prior methods substantially; in addition, it is capable of extracting event arguments for roles not seen at training time (zero-shot learning setting).
In this work we explore the task of instance segmentation with attribute localization, which unifies instance segmentation (detect and segment each object instance) and fine-grained visual attribute categorization (recognize one or multiple attributes). The proposed task requires both localizing an object and describing its properties. To illustrate the various aspects of this task, we focus on the domain of fashion and introduce Fashionpedia as a step toward mapping out the visual aspects of the fashion world. Fashionpedia consists of two parts: (1) an ontology built by fashion experts containing 27 main apparel categories, 19 apparel parts, 294 fine-grained attributes and their relationships; (2) a dataset with everyday and celebrity event fashion images annotated with segmentation masks and their associated per-mask fine-grained attributes, built upon the Fashionpedia ontology. In order to solve this challenging task, we propose a novel Attribute-Mask RCNN model to jointly perform instance segmentation and localized attribute recognition, and provide a novel evaluation metric for the task. We also demonstrate instance segmentation models pre-trained on Fashionpedia achieve better transfer learning performance on other fashion datasets than ImageNet pre-training. Fashionpedia is available at: https://fashionpedia.github.io/home/index.html.
We present the first human-annotated dialogue-based relation extraction (RE) dataset DialogRE, aiming to support the prediction of relation(s) between two arguments that appear in a dialogue. We further offer DialogRE as a platform for studying cross-sentence RE as most facts span multiple sentences. We argue that speaker-related information plays a critical role in the proposed task, based on an analysis of similarities and differences between dialogue-based and traditional RE tasks. Considering the timeliness of communication in a dialogue, we design a new metric to evaluate the performance of RE methods in a conversational setting and investigate the performance of several representative RE methods on DialogRE. Experimental results demonstrate that a speaker-aware extension on the best-performing model leads to gains in both the standard and conversational evaluation settings. DialogRE is available at https://dataset.org/dialogre/.
Research in the social sciences and psychology has shown that the persuasiveness of an argument depends not only the language employed, but also on attributes of the source/communicator, the audience, and the appropriateness and strength of the argument's claims given the pragmatic and discourse context of the argument. Among these characteristics of persuasive arguments, prior work in NLP does not explicitly investigate the effect of the pragmatic and discourse context when determining argument quality. This paper presents a new dataset to initiate the study of this aspect of argumentation: it consists of a diverse collection of arguments covering 741 controversial topics and comprising over 47,000 claims. We further propose predictive models that incorporate the pragmatic and discourse context of argumentative claims and show that they outperform models that rely only on claim-specific linguistic features for predicting the perceived impact of individual claims within a particular line of argument.
Systems for automatic argument generation and debate require the ability to (1) determine the stance of any claims employed in the argument and (2) assess the specificity of each claim relative to the argument context. Existing work on understanding claim specificity and stance, however, has been limited to the study of argumentative structures that are relatively shallow, most often consisting of a single claim that directly supports or opposes the argument thesis. In this paper, we tackle these tasks in the context of complex arguments on a diverse set of topics. In particular, our dataset consists of manually curated argument trees for 741 controversial topics covering 95,312 unique claims; lines of argument are generally of depth 2 to 6. We find that as the distance between a pair of claims increases along the argument path, determining the relative specificity of a pair of claims becomes easier and determining their relative stance becomes harder.
Existing argumentation datasets have succeeded in allowing researchers to develop computational methods for analyzing the content, structure and linguistic features of argumentative text. They have been much less successful in fostering studies of the effect of "user" traits -- characteristics and beliefs of the participants -- on the debate/argument outcome as this type of user information is generally not available. This paper presents a dataset of 78, 376 debates generated over a 10-year period along with surprisingly comprehensive participant profiles. We also complete an example study using the dataset to analyze the effect of selected user traits on the debate outcome in comparison to the linguistic features typically employed in studies of this kind.
Public debate forums provide a common platform for exchanging opinions on a topic of interest. While recent studies in natural language processing (NLP) have provided empirical evidence that the language of the debaters and their patterns of interaction play a key role in changing the mind of a reader, research in psychology has shown that prior beliefs can affect our interpretation of an argument and could therefore constitute a competing alternative explanation for resistance to changing one's stance. To study the actual effect of language use vs. prior beliefs on persuasion, we provide a new dataset and propose a controlled setting that takes into consideration two reader level factors: political and religious ideology. We find that prior beliefs affected by these reader level factors play a more important role than language use effects and argue that it is important to account for them in NLP studies of persuasion.