Analyzing political ideology and polarization is of critical importance in advancing our understanding of the political context in society. Recent research has made great strides towards understanding the ideological bias (i.e., stance) of news media along a left-right spectrum. In this work, we take a novel approach and study the ideology of the policy under discussion teasing apart the nuanced co-existence of stance and ideology. Aligned with the theoretical accounts in political science, we treat ideology as a multi-dimensional construct, and introduce the first diachronic dataset of news articles whose political ideology under discussion is annotated by trained political scientists and linguists at the paragraph-level. We showcase that this framework enables quantitative analysis of polarization, a temporal, multifaceted measure of ideological distance. We further present baseline models for ideology prediction.
Descriptive code comments are essential for supporting code comprehension and maintenance. We propose the task of automatically generating comments for overriding methods. We formulate a novel framework which accommodates the unique contextual and linguistic reasoning that is required for performing this task. Our approach features: (1) incorporating context from the class hierarchy; (2) conditioning on learned, latent representations of specificity to generate comments that capture the more specialized behavior of the overriding method; and (3) unlikelihood training to discourage predictions which do not conform to invariant characteristics of the comment corresponding to the overridden method. Our experiments show that the proposed approach is able to generate comments for overriding methods of higher quality compared to prevailing comment generation techniques.
We consider the problem of learning to simplify medical texts. This is important because most reliable, up-to-date information in biomedicine is dense with jargon and thus practically inaccessible to the lay audience. Furthermore, manual simplification does not scale to the rapidly growing body of biomedical literature, motivating the need for automated approaches. Unfortunately, there are no large-scale resources available for this task. In this work we introduce a new corpus of parallel texts in English comprising technical and lay summaries of all published evidence pertaining to different clinical topics. We then propose a new metric based on likelihood scores from a masked language model pretrained on scientific texts. We show that this automated measure better differentiates between technical and lay summaries than existing heuristics. We introduce and evaluate baseline encoder-decoder Transformer models for simplification and propose a novel augmentation to these in which we explicitly penalize the decoder for producing "jargon" terms; we find that this yields improvements over baselines in terms of readability.
Discourse signals are often implicit, leaving it up to the interpreter to draw the required inferences. At the same time, discourse is embedded in a social context, meaning that interpreters apply their own assumptions and beliefs when resolving these inferences, leading to multiple, valid interpretations. However, current discourse data and frameworks ignore the social aspect, expecting only a single ground truth. We present the first discourse dataset with multiple and subjective interpretations of English conversation in the form of perceived conversation acts and intents. We carefully analyze our dataset and create computational models to (1) confirm our hypothesis that taking into account the bias of the interpreters leads to better predictions of the interpretations, (2) and show disagreements are nuanced and require a deeper understanding of the different contextual factors. We share our dataset and code at http://github.com/elisaF/subjective_discourse.
Naming conventions are an important concern in large verification projects using proof assistants, such as Coq. In particular, lemma names are used by proof engineers to effectively understand and modify Coq code. However, providing accurate and informative lemma names is a complex task, which is currently often carried out manually. Even when lemma naming is automated using rule-based tools, generated names may fail to adhere to important conventions not specified explicitly. We demonstrate a toolchain, dubbed Roosterize, which automatically suggests lemma names in Coq projects. Roosterize leverages a neural network model trained on existing Coq code, thus avoiding manual specification of naming conventions. To allow proof engineers to conveniently access suggestions from Roosterize during Coq project development, we integrated the toolchain into the popular Visual Studio Code editor. Our evaluation shows that Roosterize substantially outperforms strong baselines for suggesting lemma names and is useful in practice. The demo video for Roosterize can be viewed at: https://youtu.be/HZ5ac7Q14rc.
Significant progress has been made in deep-learning based Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) systems in the past two decades. However, little research has been put to understand and interpret the black-box nature of these deep-learning based scoring models. Recent work shows that automated scoring systems are prone to even common-sense adversarial samples. Their lack of natural language understanding capability raises questions on the models being actively used by millions of candidates for life-changing decisions. With scoring being a highly multi-modal task, it becomes imperative for scoring models to be validated and tested on all these modalities. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms and why they are susceptible to adversarial samples. We find that the systems tested consider essays not as a piece of prose having the characteristics of natural flow of speech and grammatical structure, but as `word-soups' where a few words are much more important than the other words. Removing the context surrounding those few important words causes the prose to lose the flow of speech and grammar, however has little impact on the predicted score. We also find that since the models are not semantically grounded with world-knowledge and common sense, adding false facts such as ``the world is flat'' actually increases the score instead of decreasing it.
Much of modern day text simplification research focuses on sentence-level simplification, transforming original, more complex sentences to simplified versions. However, adding content can often be useful when difficult concepts and reasoning need to be explained. In this work, we present the first data-driven study of content addition in document simplification, which we call elaborative simplification. We introduce a new annotated dataset of 1.3K instances of elaborative simplification and analyze how entities, ideas, and concepts are elaborated through the lens of contextual specificity. We establish baselines for elaboration generation using large scale pre-trained language models, and illustrate that considering contextual specificity during generation can improve performance. Our results illustrate the complexities of elaborative simplification, suggesting many interesting directions for future work.
Humans use language to accomplish a wide variety of tasks - asking for and giving advice being one of them. In online advice forums, advice is mixed in with non-advice, like emotional support, and is sometimes stated explicitly, sometimes implicitly. Understanding the language of advice would equip systems with a better grasp of language pragmatics; practically, the ability to identify advice would drastically increase the efficiency of advice-seeking online, as well as advice-giving in natural language generation systems. We present a dataset in English from two Reddit advice forums - r/AskParents and r/needadvice - annotated for whether sentences in posts contain advice or not. Our analysis reveals rich linguistic phenomena in advice discourse. We present preliminary models showing that while pre-trained language models are able to capture advice better than rule-based systems, advice identification is challenging, and we identify directions for future research. Comments: To be presented at EMNLP 2020.
Inquisitive probing questions come naturally to humans in a variety of settings, but is a challenging task for automatic systems. One natural type of question to ask tries to fill a gap in knowledge during text comprehension, like reading a news article: we might ask about background information, deeper reasons behind things occurring, or more. Despite recent progress with data-driven approaches, generating such questions is beyond the range of models trained on existing datasets. We introduce INQUISITIVE, a dataset of ~19K questions that are elicited while a person is reading through a document. Compared to existing datasets, INQUISITIVE questions target more towards high-level (semantic and discourse) comprehension of text. We show that readers engage in a series of pragmatic strategies to seek information. Finally, we evaluate question generation models based on GPT-2 and show that our model is able to generate reasonable questions although the task is challenging, and highlight the importance of context to generate INQUISITIVE questions.