The Archive Query Log (AQL) is a previously unused, comprehensive query log collected at the Internet Archive over the last 25 years. Its first version includes 356 million queries, 166 million search result pages, and 1.7 billion search results across 550 search providers. Although many query logs have been studied in the literature, the search providers that own them generally do not publish their logs to protect user privacy and vital business data. Of the few query logs publicly available, none combines size, scope, and diversity. The AQL is the first to do so, enabling research on new retrieval models and (diachronic) search engine analyses. Provided in a privacy-preserving manner, it promotes open research as well as more transparency and accountability in the search industry.
We present Spacerini, a modular framework for seamless building and deployment of interactive search applications, designed to facilitate the qualitative analysis of large scale research datasets. Spacerini integrates features from both the Pyserini toolkit and the Hugging Face ecosystem to ease the indexing text collections and deploy them as search engines for ad-hoc exploration and to make the retrieval of relevant data points quick and efficient. The user-friendly interface enables searching through massive datasets in a no-code fashion, making Spacerini broadly accessible to anyone looking to qualitatively audit their text collections. This is useful both to IR~researchers aiming to demonstrate the capabilities of their indexes in a simple and interactive way, and to NLP~researchers looking to better understand and audit the failure modes of large language models. The framework is open source and available on GitHub: https://github.com/castorini/hf-spacerini, and includes utilities to load, pre-process, index, and deploy local and web search applications. A portfolio of applications created with Spacerini for a multitude of use cases can be found by visiting https://hf.co/spacerini.
We propose to use captions from the Web as a previously underutilized resource for paraphrases (i.e., texts with the same "message") and to create and analyze a corresponding dataset. When an image is reused on the Web, an original caption is often assigned. We hypothesize that different captions for the same image naturally form a set of mutual paraphrases. To demonstrate the suitability of this idea, we analyze captions in the English Wikipedia, where editors frequently relabel the same image for different articles. The paper introduces the underlying mining technology and compares known paraphrase corpora with respect to their syntactic and semantic paraphrase similarity to our new resource. In this context, we introduce characteristic maps along the two similarity dimensions to identify the style of paraphrases coming from different sources. An annotation study demonstrates the high reliability of the algorithmically determined characteristic maps.
Many computational argumentation tasks, like stance classification, are topic-dependent: the effectiveness of approaches to these tasks significantly depends on whether the approaches were trained on arguments from the same topics as those they are tested on. So, which are these topics that researchers train approaches on? This paper contributes the first comprehensive survey of topic coverage, assessing 45 argument corpora. For the assessment, we take the first step towards building an argument topic ontology, consulting three diverse authoritative sources: the World Economic Forum, the Wikipedia list of controversial topics, and Debatepedia. Comparing the topic sets between the authoritative sources and corpora, our analysis shows that the corpora topics-which are mostly those frequently discussed in public online fora - are covered well by the sources. However, other topics from the sources are less extensively covered by the corpora of today, revealing interesting future directions for corpus construction.
The text-to-image model Stable Diffusion has recently become very popular. Only weeks after its open source release, millions are experimenting with image generation. This is due to its ease of use, since all it takes is a brief description of the desired image to "prompt" the generative model. Rarely do the images generated for a new prompt immediately meet the user's expectations. Usually, an iterative refinement of the prompt ("prompt engineering") is necessary for satisfying images. As a new perspective, we recast image prompt engineering as interactive image retrieval - on an "infinite index". Thereby, a prompt corresponds to a query and prompt engineering to query refinement. Selected image-prompt pairs allow direct relevance feedback, as the model can modify an image for the refined prompt. This is a form of one-sided interactive retrieval, where the initiative is on the user side, whereas the server side remains stateless. In light of an extensive literature review, we develop these parallels in detail and apply the findings to a case study of a creative search task on such a model. We note that the uncertainty in searching an infinite index is virtually never-ending. We also discuss future research opportunities related to retrieval models specialized for generative models and interactive generative image retrieval. The application of IR technology, such as query reformulation and relevance feedback, will contribute to improved workflows when using generative models, while the notion of an infinite index raises new challenges in IR research.
With an ever-growing number of new publications each day, scientific writing poses an interesting domain for authorship analysis of both single-author and multi-author documents. Unfortunately, most existing corpora lack either material from the science domain or the required metadata. Hence, we present SMAuC, a new metadata-rich corpus designed specifically for authorship analysis in scientific writing. With more than three million publications from various scientific disciplines, SMAuC is the largest openly available corpus for authorship analysis to date. It combines a wide and diverse range of scientific texts from the humanities and natural sciences with rich and curated metadata, including unique and carefully disambiguated author IDs. We hope SMAuC will contribute significantly to advancing the field of authorship analysis in the science domain.
This paper presents Summary Workbench, a new tool for developing and evaluating text summarization models. New models and evaluation measures can be easily integrated as Docker-based plugins, allowing to examine the quality of their summaries against any input and to evaluate them using various evaluation measures. Visual analyses combining multiple measures provide insights into the models' strengths and weaknesses. The tool is hosted at \url{https://tldr.demo.webis.de} and also supports local deployment for private resources.
Most research on natural language processing treats bias as an absolute concept: Based on a (probably complex) algorithmic analysis, a sentence, an article, or a text is classified as biased or not. Given the fact that for humans the question of whether a text is biased can be difficult to answer or is answered contradictory, we ask whether an "absolute bias classification" is a promising goal at all. We see the problem not in the complexity of interpreting language phenomena but in the diversity of sociocultural backgrounds of the readers, which cannot be handled uniformly: To decide whether a text has crossed the proverbial line between non-biased and biased is subjective. By asking "Is text X more [less, equally] biased than text Y?" we propose to analyze a simpler problem, which, by its construction, is rather independent of standpoints, views, or sociocultural aspects. In such a model, bias becomes a preference relation that induces a partial ordering from least biased to most biased texts without requiring a decision on where to draw the line. A prerequisite for this kind of bias model is the ability of humans to perceive relative bias differences in the first place. In our research, we selected a specific type of bias in argumentation, the stance bias, and designed a crowdsourcing study showing that differences in stance bias are perceptible when (light) support is provided through training or visual aid.
Web archives have grown to petabytes. In addition to providing invaluable background knowledge on many social and cultural developments over the last 30 years, they also provide vast amounts of training data for machine learning. To benefit from recent developments in Deep Learning, the use of web archives requires a scalable solution for their processing that supports inference with and training of neural networks. To date, there is no publicly available library for processing web archives in this way, and some existing applications use workarounds. This paper presents WARC-DL, a deep learning-enabled pipeline for web archive processing that scales to petabytes.
We present the first dataset and evaluation results on a newly defined computational task of trigger warning assignment. Labeled corpus data has been compiled from narrative works hosted on Archive of Our Own (AO3), a well-known fanfiction site. In this paper, we focus on the most frequently assigned trigger type--violence--and define a document-level binary classification task of whether or not to assign a violence trigger warning to a fanfiction, exploiting warning labels provided by AO3 authors. SVM and BERT models trained in four evaluation setups on the corpora we compiled yield $F_1$ results ranging from 0.585 to 0.798, proving the violence trigger warning assignment to be a doable, however, non-trivial task.