File size: 2,663 Bytes
02cacac 085b9a8 853149d b2e9e3b b2dc1b0 853149d 1eb1f55 853149d 02cacac b2dc1b0 90d2663 1eb1f55 dd6fada 6d0dcb9 90d2663 1eb1f55 b2e9e3b 90d2663 25022d1 853149d b990e47 d0a1aa1 90d2663 25022d1 e969c33 d0a1aa1 e969c33 853149d 1eb1f55 b2e9e3b 5756e85 853149d e969c33 02cacac |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 |
---
language: english
widget:
- text: "Mi estas viro kej estas tago varma."
---
### Welcome to **RoBERTArg**!
🤖 **Model description**
This model was trained on ~25k heterogeneous manually annotated sentences (📚 Stab et al. 2018) of controversial topics to classify text into one of two labels: 🏷 **NON-ARGUMENT** (0) and **ARGUMENT** (1).
🗃 **Dataset**
The dataset (📚 Stab et al. 2018) consists of **ARGUMENTS** (~11k) that either support or oppose a topic if it includes a relevant reason for supporting or opposing the topic, or as a **NON-ARGUMENT** (~14k) if it does not include reasons. The authors focus on controversial topics, i.e., topics that include an obvious polarity to the possible outcomes and compile a final set of eight controversial topics: _abortion, school uniforms, death penalty, marijuana legalization, nuclear energy, cloning, gun control, and minimum wage_.
| TOPIC | ARGUMENT | NON-ARGUMENT |
|----|----|----|
| abortion | 2213 | 2,427 |
| school uniforms | 325 | 1,734 |
| death penalty | 325 | 2,083 |
| marijuana legalization | 325 | 1,262 |
| nuclear energy | 325 | 2,118 |
| cloning | 325 | 1,494 |
| gun control | 325 | 1,889 |
| minimum wage | 325 | 1,346 |
🏃🏼♂️**Model training**
**RoBERTArg** was fine-tuned on a RoBERTA (base) pre-trained model from HuggingFace using the HuggingFace trainer with the following hyperparameters. The hyperparameters were determined using a hyperparameter search on a 20% validation set.
```
training_args = TrainingArguments(
num_train_epochs=2,
learning_rate=2.3102e-06,
seed=8,
per_device_train_batch_size=64,
per_device_eval_batch_size=64,
)
```
📊 **Evaluation**
The model was evaluated using 20% of the sentences (80-20 train-test split).
| Model | Acc | F1 | R arg | R non | P arg | P non |
|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|
| RoBERTArg | 0.8193 | 0.8021 | 0.8463 | 0.7986 | 0.7623 | 0.8719 |
Showing the **confusion matrix** using the 20% of the sentences as an evaluation set:
| | ARGUMENT | NON-ARGUMENT |
|----|----|----|
| ARGUMENT | 2213 | 558 |
| NON-ARGUMENT | 325 | 1790 |
⚠️ **Intended Uses & Potential Limitations**
The model can be a starting point to dive into the exciting area of argument mining. But be aware. An argument is a complex structure, topic-dependent, and often differs between different text types. Therefore, the model may perform less well on different topics and text types, which are not included in the training set.
Enjoy and stay tuned! 🚀
📚Stab et al. (2018): Cross-topic Argument Mining from Heterogeneous Sources. [LINK](https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D18-1402/). |