ymoslem/acl-abstracts huggingface dataset:
Annotating Topics, Stance, Argumentativeness and Claims in Dutch Social Media Comments: A Pilot Study (2020)

One of the major challenges currently facing the field of argumentation mining is the lack of consensus on how to analyse argumentative user-generated texts such as online comments. The theoretical motivations underlying the annotation guidelines used to generate labelled corpora rarely include motivation for the use of a particular theoretical basis. This pilot study reports on the annotation of a corpus of 100 Dutch user comments made in response to politically-themed news articles on Facebook. The annotation covers topic and aspect labelling, stance labelling, argumentativeness detection and claim identification. Our IAA study reports substantial agreement scores for argumentativeness detection (0.76 Fleiss' kappa) and moderate agreement for claim labelling (0.45 Fleiss' kappa). We provide a clear justification of the theories and definitions underlying the design of our guidelines. Our analysis of the annotations signal the importance of adjusting our guidelines to include allowances for missing context information and defining the concept of argumentativeness in connection with stance. Our annotated corpus and associated guidelines are made publicly available.
Semi-Supervised Cleansing of Web Argument Corpora (2020)

Debate portals and similar web platforms constitute one of the main text sources in computational argumentation research and its applications. While the corpora built upon these sources are rich of argumentatively relevant content and structure, they also include text that is irrelevant, or even detrimental, to their purpose. In this paper, we present a precision-oriented approach to detecting such irrelevant text in a semi-supervised way. Given a few seed examples, the approach automatically learns basic lexical patterns of relevance and irrelevance and then incrementally bootstraps new patterns from sentences matching the patterns. In the existing args.me corpus with 400k argumentative texts, our approach detects almost 87k irrelevant sentences, at a precision of 0.97 according to manual evaluation. With low effort, the approach can be adapted to other web argument corpora, providing a generic way to improve corpus quality.
Exploring Morality in Argumentation (2020)

Sentiment and stance are two important concepts for the analysis of arguments. We propose to add another perspective to the analysis, namely moral sentiment. We argue that moral values are crucial for ideological debates and can thus add useful information for argument mining. In the paper, we present different models for automatically predicting moral sentiment in debates and evaluate them on a manually annotated testset. We then apply our models to investigate how moral values in arguments relate to argument quality, stance and audience reactions.
Aspect-Based Argument Mining (2020)

Computational Argumentation in general and Argument Mining in particular are important research fields. In previous works, many of the challenges to automatically extract and to some degree reason over natural language arguments were addressed. The tools to extract argument units are increasingly available and further open problems can be addressed. In this work, we are presenting the task of Aspect-Based Argument Mining (ABAM), with the essential subtasks of Aspect Term Extraction (ATE) and Nested Segmentation (NS). At the first instance, we create and release an annotated corpus with aspect information on the token-level. We consider aspects as the main point(s) argument units are addressing. This information is important for further downstream tasks such as argument ranking, argument summarization and generation, as well as the search for counter-arguments on the aspect-level. We present several experiments using state-of-the-art supervised architectures and demonstrate their performance for both of the subtasks. The annotated benchmark is available at \url{https://github.com/trtm/ABAM}.
Annotation and Detection of Arguments in Tweets (2020)

Notwithstanding the increasing role Twitter plays in modern political and social discourse, resources built for conducting argument mining on tweets remain limited. In this paper, we present a new corpus of German tweets annotated for argument components. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first corpus containing not only annotated full tweets but also argumentative spans within tweets. We further report first promising results using supervised classification (F1: 0.82) and sequence labeling (F1: 0.72) approaches.
News Aggregation with Diverse Viewpoint Identification Using Neural Embeddings and Semantic Understanding Models (2020)

Today`s news volume makes it impractical for readers to get a diverse and comprehensive view of published articles written from opposing viewpoints. We introduce a transformer-based news aggregation system, composed of topic modeling, semantic clustering, claim extraction, and textual entailment that identifies viewpoints presented in articles within a semantic cluster and classifies them into positive, neutral and negative entailments. Our novel embedded topic model using BERT-based embeddings outperforms baseline topic modeling algorithms by an 11{\%} relative improvement. We compare recent semantic similarity models in the context of news aggregation, evaluate transformer-based models for claim extraction on news data, and demonstrate the use of textual entailment models for diverse viewpoint identification.
ECHR: Legal Corpus for Argument Mining (2020)

In this paper, we publicly release an annotated corpus of 42 decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The corpus is annotated in terms of three types of clauses useful in argument mining: premise, conclusion, and non-argument parts of the text. Furthermore, relationships among the premises and conclusions are mapped. We present baselines for three tasks that lead from unstructured texts to structured arguments. The tasks are argument clause recognition, clause relation prediction, and premise/conclusion recognition. Despite a straightforward application of the bidirectional encoders from Transformers (BERT), we obtained very promising results F1 0.765 on argument recognition, 0.511 on relation prediction, and 0.859/0.628 on premise/conclusion recognition). The results suggest the usefulness of pre-trained language models based on deep neural network architectures in argument mining. Because of the simplicity of the baselines, there is ample space for improvement in future work based on the released corpus.
Argument from Old Man`s View: Assessing Social Bias in Argumentation (2020)

Social bias in language - towards genders, ethnicities, ages, and other social groups - poses a problem with ethical impact for many NLP applications. Recent research has shown that machine learning models trained on respective data may not only adopt, but even amplify the bias. So far, however, little attention has been paid to bias in computational argumentation. In this paper, we study the existence of social biases in large English debate portals. In particular, we train word embedding models on portal-specific corpora and systematically evaluate their bias using WEAT, an existing metric to measure bias in word embeddings. In a word co-occurrence analysis, we then investigate causes of bias. The results suggest that all tested debate corpora contain unbalanced and biased data, mostly in favor of male people with European-American names. Our empirical insights contribute towards an understanding of bias in argumentative data sources.
Use of Claim Graphing and Argumentation Schemes in Biomedical Literature: A Manual Approach to Analysis (2020)

Argumentation in an experimental life science paper consists of a main claim being supported with reasoned argumentative steps based on the data garnered from the experiments that were carried out. In this paper we report on an investigation of the large scale argumentation structure found when examining five biochemistry journal publications. One outcome of this investigation of biochemistry articles suggests that argumentation schemes originally designed for genetic research articles may transfer to experimental biomedical literature in general. Our use of these argumentation schemes shows that claims depend not only on experimental data but also on other claims. The tendency for claims to use other claims as their supporting evidence in addition to the experimental data led to two novel models that have provided a better understanding of the large scale argumentation structure of a complete biochemistry paper. First, the claim graph displays the claims within a paper, their interactions, and their evidence. Second, another aspect of this argumentation network is further illustrated by the Model of Informational Hierarchy (MIH) which visualizes at a meta-level the flow of reasoning provided by the authors of the paper and also connects the main claim to the paper`s title. Together, these models, which have been produced by a manual examination of the biochemistry articles, would be likely candidates for a computational method that analyzes the large scale argumentation structure.
Annotating argumentation in Swedish social media (2020)

This paper presents a small study of annotating argumentation in Swedish social media. Annotators were asked to annotate spans of argumentation in 9 threads from two discussion forums. At the post level, Cohen`s k and Krippendorff`s alpha 0.48 was achieved. When manually inspecting the annotations the annotators seemed to agree when conditions in the guidelines were explicitly met, but implicit argumentation and opinions, resulting in annotators having to interpret what`s missing in the text, caused disagreements.
Style Analysis of Argumentative Texts by Mining Rhetorical Devices (2020)

Using the appropriate style is key for writing a high-quality text. Reliable computational style analysis is hence essential for the automation of nearly all kinds of text synthesis tasks. Research on style analysis focuses on recognition problems such as authorship identification; the respective technology (e.g., n-gram distribution divergence quantification) showed to be effective for discrimination, but inappropriate for text synthesis since the {\textquotedblleft}essence of a style{\textquotedblright} remains implicit. This paper contributes right here: it studies the automatic analysis of style at the knowledge-level based on rhetorical devices. To this end, we developed and evaluated a grammar-based approach for identifying 26 syntax-based devices. Then, we employed that approach to distinguish various patterns of style in selected sets of argumentative articles and presidential debates. The patterns reveal several insights into the style used there, while being adequate for integration in text synthesis systems.
Creating a Domain-diverse Corpus for Theory-based Argument Quality Assessment (2020)

Computational models of argument quality (AQ) have focused primarily on assessing the overall quality or just one specific characteristic of an argument, such as its convincingness or its clarity. However, previous work has claimed that assessment based on theoretical dimensions of argumentation could benefit writers, but developing such models has been limited by the lack of annotated data. In this work, we describe GAQCorpus, the first large, domain-diverse annotated corpus of theory-based AQ. We discuss how we designed the annotation task to reliably collect a large number of judgments with crowdsourcing, formulating theory-based guidelines that helped make subjective judgments of AQ more objective. We demonstrate how to identify arguments and adapt the annotation task for three diverse domains. Our work will inform research on theory-based argumentation annotation and enable the creation of more diverse corpora to support computational AQ assessment.
Online Abuse and Human Rights: WOAH Satellite Session at RightsCon 2020 (2020)

In 2020 The Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH) held a satellite panel at RightsCons 2020, an international human rights conference. Our aim was to bridge the gap between human rights scholarship and Natural Language Processing (NLP) research communities in tackling online abuse. We report on the discussions that took place, and present an analysis of four key issues which emerged: Problems in tackling online abuse, Solutions, Meta concerns and the Ecosystem of content moderation and research. We argue there is a pressing need for NLP research communities to engage with human rights perspectives, and identify four key ways in which NLP research into online abuse could immediately be enhanced to create better and more ethical solutions.
A Novel Methodology for Developing Automatic Harassment Classifiers for Twitter (2020)

Most efforts at identifying abusive speech online rely on public corpora that have been scraped from websites using keyword-based queries or released by site or platform owners for research purposes. These are typically labeled by crowd-sourced annotators {--} not the targets of the abuse themselves. While this method of data collection supports fast development of machine learning classifiers, the models built on them often fail in the context of real-world harassment and abuse, which contain nuances less easily identified by non-targets. Here, we present a mixed-methods approach to create classifiers for abuse and harassment which leverages direct engagement with the target group in order to achieve high quality and ecological validity of data sets and labels, and to generate deeper insights into the key tactics of bad actors. We use women journalists' experience on Twitter as an initial community of focus. We identify several structural mechanisms of abuse that we believe will generalize to other target communities.
Using Transfer-based Language Models to Detect Hateful and Offensive Language Online (2020)

Distinguishing hate speech from non-hate offensive language is challenging, as hate speech not always includes offensive slurs and offensive language not always express hate. Here, four deep learners based on the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT), with either general or domain-specific language models, were tested against two datasets containing tweets labelled as either {\textquoteleft}Hateful', {\textquoteleft}Normal' or {\textquoteleft}Offensive'. The results indicate that the attention-based models profoundly confuse hate speech with offensive and normal language. However, the pre-trained models outperform state-of-the-art results in terms of accurately predicting the hateful instances.
Fine-tuning for multi-domain and multi-label uncivil language detection (2020)

Incivility is a problem on social media, and it comes in many forms (name-calling, vulgarity, threats, etc.) and domains (microblog posts, online news comments, Wikipedia edits, etc.). Training machine learning models to detect such incivility must handle the multi-label and multi-domain nature of the problem. We present a BERT-based model for incivility detection and propose several approaches for training it for multi-label and multi-domain datasets. We find that individual binary classifiers outperform a joint multi-label classifier, and that simply combining multiple domains of training data outperforms other recently-proposed fine tuning strategies. We also establish new state-of-the-art performance on several incivility detection datasets.
HurtBERT: Incorporating Lexical Features with BERT for the Detection of Abusive Language (2020)

The detection of abusive or offensive remarks in social texts has received significant attention in research. In several related shared tasks, BERT has been shown to be the state-of-the-art. In this paper, we propose to utilize lexical features derived from a hate lexicon towards improving the performance of BERT in such tasks. We explore different ways to utilize the lexical features in the form of lexicon-based encodings at the sentence level or embeddings at the word level. We provide an extensive dataset evaluation that addresses in-domain as well as cross-domain detection of abusive content to render a complete picture. Our results indicate that our proposed models combining BERT with lexical features help improve over a baseline BERT model in many of our in-domain and cross-domain experiments.
Abusive Language Detection using Syntactic Dependency Graphs (2020)

Automated detection of abusive language online has become imperative. Current sequential models (LSTM) do not work well for long and complex sentences while bi-transformer models (BERT) are not computationally efficient for the task. We show that classifiers based on syntactic structure of the text, dependency graphical convolutional networks (DepGCNs) can achieve state-of-the-art performance on abusive language datasets. The overall performance is at par with of strong baselines such as fine-tuned BERT. Further, our GCN-based approach is much more efficient than BERT at inference time making it suitable for real-time detection.
Impact of Politically Biased Data on Hate Speech Classification (2020)

One challenge that social media platforms are facing nowadays is hate speech. Hence, automatic hate speech detection has been increasingly researched in recent years - in particular with the rise of deep learning. A problem of these models is their vulnerability to undesirable bias in training data. We investigate the impact of political bias on hate speech classification by constructing three politically-biased data sets (left-wing, right-wing, politically neutral) and compare the performance of classifiers trained on them. We show that (1) political bias negatively impairs the performance of hate speech classifiers and (2) an explainable machine learning model can help to visualize such bias within the training data. The results show that political bias in training data has an impact on hate speech classification and can become a serious issue.
Reducing Unintended Identity Bias in Russian Hate Speech Detection (2020)

Toxicity has become a grave problem for many online communities, and has been growing across many languages, including Russian. Hate speech creates an environment of intimidation, discrimination, and may even incite some real-world violence. Both researchers and social platforms have been focused on developing models to detect toxicity in online communication for a while now. A common problem of these models is the presence of bias towards some words (e.g. woman, black, jew or {\cyrzh}{\cyre}{\cyrn}{\cyrshch}{\cyri}{\cyrn}{\cyra}, {\cyrch}{\cyre}{\cyrr}{\cyrn}{\cyrery}{\cyrishrt}, {\cyre}{\cyrv}{\cyrr}{\cyre}{\cyrishrt}) that are not toxic, but serve as triggers for the classifier due to model caveats. In this paper, we describe our efforts towards classifying hate speech in Russian, and propose simple techniques of reducing unintended bias, such as generating training data with language models using terms and words related to protected identities as context and applying word dropout to such words.
Investigating Sampling Bias in Abusive Language Detection (2020)

Abusive language detection is becoming increasingly important, but we still understand little about the biases in our datasets for abusive language detection, and how these biases affect the quality of abusive language detection. In the work reported here, we reproduce the investigation of Wiegand et al. (2019) to determine differences between different sampling strategies. They compared boosted random sampling, where abusive posts are upsampled, and biased topic sampling, which focuses on topics that are known to cause abusive language. Instead of comparing individual datasets created using these sampling strategies, we use the sampling strategies on a single, large dataset, thus eliminating the textual source of the dataset as a potential confounding factor. We show that differences in the textual source can have more effect than the chosen sampling strategy.
Attending the Emotions to Detect Online Abusive Language (2020)

In recent years, abusive behavior has become a serious issue in online social networks. In this paper, we present a new corpus for the task of abusive language detection that is collected from a semi-anonymous online platform, and unlike the majority of other available resources, is not created based on a specific list of bad words. We also develop computational models to incorporate emotions into textual cues to improve aggression identification. We evaluate our proposed methods on a set of corpora related to the task and show promising results with respect to abusive language detection.
Enhancing the Identification of Cyberbullying through Participant Roles (2020)

Cyberbullying is a prevalent social problem that inflicts detrimental consequences to the health and safety of victims such as psychological distress, anti-social behaviour, and suicide. The automation of cyberbullying detection is a recent but widely researched problem, with current research having a strong focus on a binary classification of bullying versus non-bullying. This paper proposes a novel approach to enhancing cyberbullying detection through role modeling. We utilise a dataset from ASKfm to perform multi-class classification to detect participant roles (e.g. victim, harasser). Our preliminary results demonstrate promising performance including 0.83 and 0.76 of F1-score for cyberbullying and role classification respectively, outperforming baselines.
Developing a New Classifier for Automated Identification of Incivility in Social Media (2020)

Incivility is not only prevalent on online social media platforms, but also has concrete effects on individual users, online groups, and the platforms themselves. Given the prevalence and effects of online incivility, and the challenges involved in human-based incivility detection, it is urgent to develop validated and versatile automatic approaches to identifying uncivil posts and comments. This project advances both a neural, BERT-based classifier as well as a logistic regression classifier to identify uncivil comments. The classifier is trained on a dataset of Reddit posts, which are annotated for incivility, and further expanded using a combination of labeled data from Reddit and Twitter. Our best performing model achieves an F1 of 0.802 on our Reddit test set. The final model is not only applicable across social media platforms and their distinct data structures, but also computationally versatile, and - as such - ready to be used on vast volumes of online data. All trained models and annotated data are made available to the research community.
Countering hate on social media: Large scale classification of hate and counter speech (2020)

Hateful rhetoric is plaguing online discourse, fostering extreme societal movements and possibly giving rise to real-world violence. A potential solution to this growing global problem is citizen-generated counter speech where citizens actively engage with hate speech to restore civil non-polarized discourse. However, its actual effectiveness in curbing the spread of hatred is unknown and hard to quantify. One major obstacle to researching this question is a lack of large labeled data sets for training automated classifiers to identify counter speech. Here we use a unique situation in Germany where self-labeling groups engaged in organized online hate and counter speech. We use an ensemble learning algorithm which pairs a variety of paragraph embeddings with regularized logistic regression functions to classify both hate and counter speech in a corpus of millions of relevant tweets from these two groups. Our pipeline achieves macro F1 scores on out of sample balanced test sets ranging from 0.76 to 0.97{---}accuracy in line and even exceeding the state of the art. We then use the classifier to discover hate and counter speech in more than 135,000 fully-resolved Twitter conversations occurring from 2013 to 2018 and study their frequency and interaction. Altogether, our results highlight the potential of automated methods to evaluate the impact of coordinated counter speech in stabilizing conversations on social media.