Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOn Positivity Bias in Negative Reviews
83
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Chenhao Tan
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Prior work has revealed that positive words occur more frequently than negative words in human expressions, which is typically attributed to positivity bias, a tendency for people to report positive views of reality. But what about the language used in negative reviews? Consistent with prior work, we show that English negative reviews tend to contain more positive words than negative words, using a variety of datasets. We reconcile this observation with prior findings on the pragmatics of negation, and show that negations are commonly associated with positive words in negative reviews. Furthermore, in negative reviews, the majority of sentences with positive words express negative opinions based on sentiment classifiers, indicating some form of negation.
rate research
Read More
With language models being deployed increasingly in the real world, it is essential to address the issue of the fairness of their outputs. The word embedding representations of these language models often implicitly draw unwanted associations that form a social bias within the model. The nature of gendered languages like Hindi, poses an additional problem to the quantification and mitigation of bias, owing to the change in the form of the words in the sentence, based on the gender of the subject. Additionally, there is sparse work done in the realm of measuring and debiasing systems for Indic languages. In our work, we attempt to evaluate and quantify the gender bias within a Hindi-English machine translation system. We implement a modified version of the existing TGBI metric based on the grammatical considerations for Hindi. We also compare and contrast the resulting bias measurements across multiple metrics for pre-trained embeddings and the ones learned by our machine translation model.
Negative reviews, the poor ratings in postpurchase evaluation, play an indispensable role in e-commerce, especially in shaping future sales and firm equities. However, extant studies seldom examine their potential value for sellers and producers in enhancing capabilities of providing better services and products. For those who exploited the helpfulness of reviews in the view of e-commerce keepers, the ranking approaches were developed for customers instead. To fill this gap, in terms of combining description texts and emotion polarities, the aim of the ranking method in this study is to provide the most helpful negative reviews under a certain product attribute for online sellers and producers. By applying a more reasonable evaluating procedure, experts with related backgrounds are hired to vote for the ranking approaches. Our ranking method turns out to be more reliable for ranking negative reviews for sellers and producers, demonstrating a better performance than the baselines like BM25 with a result of 8% higher. In this paper, we also enrich the previous understandings of emotions in valuing reviews. Specifically, it is surprisingly found that positive emotions are more helpful rather than negative emotions in ranking negative reviews. The unexpected strengthening from positive emotions in ranking suggests that less polarized reviews on negative experience in fact offer more rational feedbacks and thus more helpfulness to the sellers and producers. The presented ranking method could provide e-commerce practitioners with an efficient and effective way to leverage negative reviews from online consumers.
Unintended biases in machine learning (ML) models are among the major concerns that must be addressed to maintain public trust in ML. In this paper, we address process fairness of ML models that consists in reducing the dependence of models on sensitive features, without compromising their performance. We revisit the framework FixOut that is inspired in the approach fairness through unawareness to build fairer models. We introduce several improvements such as automating the choice of FixOuts parameters. Also, FixOut was originally proposed to improve fairness of ML models on tabular data. We also demonstrate the feasibility of FixOuts workflow for models on textual data. We present several experimental results that illustrate the fact that FixOut improves process fairness on different classification settings.
Conversational agents are exploding in popularity. However, much work remains in the area of non goal-oriented conversations, despite significant growth in research interest over recent years. To advance the state of the art in conversational AI, Amazon launched the Alexa Prize, a 2.5-million dollar university competition where sixteen selected university teams built conversational agents to deliver the best social conversational experience. Alexa Prize provided the academic community with the unique opportunity to perform research with a live system used by millions of users. The subjectivity associated with evaluating conversations is key element underlying the challenge of building non-goal oriented dialogue systems. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive evaluation strategy with multiple metrics designed to reduce subjectivity by selecting metrics which correlate well with human judgement. The proposed metrics provide granular analysis of the conversational agents, which is not captured in human ratings. We show that these metrics can be used as a reasonable proxy for human judgment. We provide a mechanism to unify the metrics for selecting the top performing agents, which has also been applied throughout the Alexa Prize competition. To our knowledge, to date it is the largest setting for evaluating agents with millions of conversations and hundreds of thousands of ratings from users. We believe that this work is a step towards an automatic evaluation process for conversational AIs.
A growing effort in NLP aims to build datasets of human explanations. However, the term explanation encompasses a broad range of notions, each with different properties and ramifications. Our goal is to provide an overview of diverse types of explanations and human limitations, and discuss implications for collecting and using explanations in NLP. Inspired by prior work in psychology and cognitive sciences, we group existing human explanations in NLP into three categories: proximal mechanism, evidence, and procedure. These three types differ in nature and have implications for the resultant explanations. For instance, procedure is not considered explanations in psychology and connects with a rich body of work on learning from instructions. The diversity of explanations is further evidenced by proxy questions that are needed for annotators to interpret and answer open-ended why questions. Finally, explanations may require different, often deeper, understandings than predictions, which casts doubt on whether humans can provide useful explanations in some tasks.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
