Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userWhat Would a Teacher Do? Predicting Future Talk Moves
183
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Ananya Ganesh
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) have the ability to transform how classroom learning takes place. Combined with the increasing integration of technology in todays classrooms, NLP systems leveraging question answering and dialog processing techniques can serve as private tutors or participants in classroom discussions to increase student engagement and learning. To progress towards this goal, we use the classroom discourse framework of academically productive talk (APT) to learn strategies that make for the best learning experience. In this paper, we introduce a new task, called future talk move prediction (FTMP): it consists of predicting the next talk move -- an utterance strategy from APT -- given a conversation history with its corresponding talk moves. We further introduce a neural network model for this task, which outperforms multiple baselines by a large margin. Finally, we compare our models performance on FTMP to human performance and show several similarities between the two.
rate research
Read More
Natural Language Processing (NLP) models propagate social biases about protected attributes such as gender, race, and nationality. To create interventions and mitigate these biases and associated harms, it is vital to be able to detect and measure such biases. While many existing works propose bias evaluation methodologies for different tasks, there remains a need to cohesively understand what biases and normative harms each of these measures captures and how different measures compare. To address this gap, this work presents a comprehensive survey of existing bias measures in NLP as a function of the associated NLP tasks, metrics, datasets, and social biases and corresponding harms. This survey also organizes metrics into different categories to present advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we propose a documentation standard for bias measures to aid their development, categorization, and appropriate usage.
In astronomical and cosmological studies one often wishes to infer some properties of an infinite-dimensional field indexed within a finite-dimensional metric space given only a finite collection of noisy observational data. Bayesian inference offers an increasingly-popular strategy to overcome the inherent ill-posedness of this signal reconstruction challenge. However, there remains a great deal of confusion within the astronomical community regarding the appropriate mathematical devices for framing such analyses and the diversity of available computational procedures for recovering posterior functionals. In this brief research note I will attempt to clarify both these issues from an applied statistics perpective, with insights garnered from my post-astronomy experiences as a computational Bayesian / epidemiological geostatistician.
Recent research towards understanding neural networks probes models in a top-down manner, but is only able to identify model tendencies that are known a priori. We propose Susceptibility Identification through Fine-Tuning (SIFT), a novel abstractive method that uncovers a models preferences without imposing any prior. By fine-tuning an autoencoder with the gradients from a fixed classifier, we are able to extract propensities that characterize different kinds of classifiers in a bottom-up manner. We further leverage the SIFT architecture to rephrase sentences in order to predict the opposing class of the ground truth label, uncovering potential artifacts encoded in the fixed classification model. We evaluate our method on three diverse tasks with four different models. We contrast the propensities of the models as well as reproduce artifacts reported in the literature.
While many methods purport to explain predictions by highlighting salient features, what precise aims these explanations serve and how to evaluate their utility are often unstated. In this work, we formalize the value of explanations using a student-teacher paradigm that measures the extent to which explanations improve student models in learning to simulate the teacher model on unseen examples for which explanations are unavailable. Student models incorporate explanations in training (but not prediction) procedures. Unlike many prior proposals to evaluate explanations, our approach cannot be easily gamed, enabling principled, scalable, and automatic evaluation of attributions. Using our framework, we compare multiple attribution methods and observe consistent and quantitative differences amongst them across multiple learning strategies.
As the numbers of submissions to conferences grow quickly, the task of assessing the quality of academic papers automatically, convincingly, and with high accuracy attracts increasing attention. We argue that studying interpretable dimensions of these submissions could lead to scalable solutions. We extract a collection of writing features, and construct a suite of prediction tasks to assess the usefulness of these features in predicting citation counts and the publication of AI-related papers. Depending on the venues, the writing features can predict the conference vs. workshop appearance with F1 scores up to 60-90, sometimes even outperforming the content-based tf-idf features and RoBERTa. We show that the features describe writing style more than content. To further understand the results, we estimate the causal impact of the most indicative features. Our analysis on writing features provides a perspective to assessing and refining the writing of academic articles at scale.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
