اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدRefining Implicit Argument Annotation for UCCA
127
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Predicate-argument structure analysis is a central component in meaning representations of text. The fact that some arguments are not explicitly mentioned in a sentence gives rise to ambiguity in language understanding, and renders it difficult for machines to interpret text correctly. However, only few resources represent implicit roles for NLU, and existing studies in NLP only make coarse distinctions between categories of arguments omitted from linguistic form. This paper proposes a typology for fine-grained implicit argument annotation on top of Universal Conceptual Cognitive Annotations foundational layer. The proposed implicit argument categorisation is driven by theories of implicit role interpretation and consists of six types: Deictic, Generic, Genre-based, Type-identifiable, Non-specific, and Iterated-set. We exemplify our design by revisiting part of the UCCA EWT corpus, providing a new dataset annotated with the refinement layer, and making a comparative analysis with other schemes.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
We exhibit that the implicit UCCA parser does not address numeric fused-heads (NFHs) consistently, which could result either from inconsistent annotation, insufficient training data or a modelling limitation. and show which factors are involved. We c
onsider this phenomenon important, as it is pervasive in text and critical for correct inference. Careful design and fine-grained annotation of NFHs in meaning representation frameworks would benefit downstream tasks such as machine translation, natural language inference and question answering, particularly when they require numeric reasoning, as recovering and categorizing them. We are investigating the treatment of this phenomenon by other meaning representations, such as AMR. We encourage researchers in meaning representations, and computational linguistics in general, to address this phenomenon in future research.
Text generation has received a lot of attention in computational argumentation research as of recent. A particularly challenging task is the generation of counter-arguments. So far, approaches primarily focus on rebutting a given conclusion, yet othe
r ways to counter an argument exist. In this work, we go beyond previous research by exploring argument undermining, that is, countering an argument by attacking one of its premises. We hypothesize that identifying the arguments weak premises is key to effective countering. Accordingly, we propose a pipeline approach that first assesses the premises strength and then generates a counter-argument targeting the weak ones. On the one hand, both manual and automatic evaluation proves the importance of identifying weak premises in counter-argument generation. On the other hand, when considering correctness and content richness, human annotators favored our approach over state-of-the-art counter-argument generation.
We describe a recently developed corpus annotation scheme for evaluating parsers that avoids shortcomings of current methods. The scheme encodes grammatical relations between heads and dependents, and has been used to mark up a new public-domain corp
us of naturally occurring English text. We show how the corpus can be used to evaluate the accuracy of a robust parser, and relate the corpus to extant resources.
Copying mechanism has been commonly used in neural paraphrasing networks and other text generation tasks, in which some important words in the input sequence are preserved in the output sequence. Similarly, in machine translation, we notice that ther
e are certain words or phrases appearing in all good translations of one source text, and these words tend to convey important semantic information. Therefore, in this work, we define words carrying important semantic meanings in sentences as semantic core words. Moreover, we propose an MT evaluation approach named Semantically Weighted Sentence Similarity (SWSS). It leverages the power of UCCA to identify semantic core words, and then calculates sentence similarity scores on the overlap of semantic core words. Experimental results show that SWSS can consistently improve the performance of popular MT evaluation metrics which are based on lexical similarity.
Argumentation is a type of discourse where speakers try to persuade their audience about the reasonableness of a claim by presenting supportive arguments. Most work in argument mining has focused on modeling arguments in monologues. We propose a comp
utational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums that brings together the micro-level (argument as product) and macro-level (argument as process) models of argumentation. Fundamentally, this approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our approach for relation prediction uses contextual information in terms of fine-tuning a pre-trained language model and leveraging discourse relations based on Rhetorical Structure Theory. We additionally propose a candidate selection method to automatically predict what parts of ones argument will be targeted by other participants in the discussion. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches using pointer networks and a pre-trained language model.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
