Showing 1–12 of 12 results for author: Daxenberger, J

Crowdsourcing on Sensitive Data with Privacy-Preserving Text Rewriting

Authors: Nina Mouhammad, Johannes Daxenberger, Benjamin Schiller, Ivan Habernal

Abstract: Most tasks in NLP require labeled data. Data labeling is often done on crowdsourcing platforms due to scalability reasons. However, publishing data on public platforms can only be done if no privacy-relevant information is included. Textual data often contains sensitive information like person names or locations. In this work, we investigate how removing personally identifiable information (PII) a… ▽ More Most tasks in NLP require labeled data. Data labeling is often done on crowdsourcing platforms due to scalability reasons. However, publishing data on public platforms can only be done if no privacy-relevant information is included. Textual data often contains sensitive information like person names or locations. In this work, we investigate how removing personally identifiable information (PII) as well as applying differential privacy (DP) rewriting can enable text with privacy-relevant information to be used for crowdsourcing. We find that DP-rewriting before crowdsourcing can preserve privacy while still leading to good label quality for certain tasks and data. PII-removal led to good label quality in all examined tasks, however, there are no privacy guarantees given. △ Less

Submitted 6 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Diversity Over Size: On the Effect of Sample and Topic Sizes for Argument Mining Datasets

Authors: Benjamin Schiller, Johannes Daxenberger, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: The task of Argument Mining, that is extracting argumentative sentences for a specific topic from large document sources, is an inherently difficult task for machine learning models and humans alike, as large Argument Mining datasets are rare and recognition of argumentative sentences requires expert knowledge. The task becomes even more difficult if it also involves stance detection of retrieved… ▽ More The task of Argument Mining, that is extracting argumentative sentences for a specific topic from large document sources, is an inherently difficult task for machine learning models and humans alike, as large Argument Mining datasets are rare and recognition of argumentative sentences requires expert knowledge. The task becomes even more difficult if it also involves stance detection of retrieved arguments. Given the cost and complexity of creating suitably large Argument Mining datasets, we ask whether it is necessary for acceptable performance to have datasets growing in size. Our findings show that, when using carefully composed training samples and a model pretrained on related tasks, we can reach 95% of the maximum performance while reducing the training sample size by at least 85%. This gain is consistent across three Argument Mining tasks on three different datasets. We also publish a new dataset for future benchmarking. △ Less

Submitted 15 July, 2023; v1 submitted 23 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

Augmented SBERT: Data Augmentation Method for Improving Bi-Encoders for Pairwise Sentence Scoring Tasks

Authors: Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Johannes Daxenberger, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: There are two approaches for pairwise sentence scoring: Cross-encoders, which perform full-attention over the input pair, and Bi-encoders, which map each input independently to a dense vector space. While cross-encoders often achieve higher performance, they are too slow for many practical use cases. Bi-encoders, on the other hand, require substantial training data and fine-tuning over the target… ▽ More There are two approaches for pairwise sentence scoring: Cross-encoders, which perform full-attention over the input pair, and Bi-encoders, which map each input independently to a dense vector space. While cross-encoders often achieve higher performance, they are too slow for many practical use cases. Bi-encoders, on the other hand, require substantial training data and fine-tuning over the target task to achieve competitive performance. We present a simple yet efficient data augmentation strategy called Augmented SBERT, where we use the cross-encoder to label a larger set of input pairs to augment the training data for the bi-encoder. We show that, in this process, selecting the sentence pairs is non-trivial and crucial for the success of the method. We evaluate our approach on multiple tasks (in-domain) as well as on a domain adaptation task. Augmented SBERT achieves an improvement of up to 6 points for in-domain and of up to 37 points for domain adaptation tasks compared to the original bi-encoder performance. △ Less

Submitted 12 April, 2021; v1 submitted 16 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Comments: Accepted at NAACL 2021

How to Probe Sentence Embeddings in Low-Resource Languages: On Structural Design Choices for Probing Task Evaluation

Authors: Steffen Eger, Johannes Daxenberger, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: Sentence encoders map sentences to real valued vectors for use in downstream applications. To peek into these representations - e.g., to increase interpretability of their results - probing tasks have been designed which query them for linguistic knowledge. However, designing probing tasks for lesser-resourced languages is tricky, because these often lack large-scale annotated data or (high-qualit… ▽ More Sentence encoders map sentences to real valued vectors for use in downstream applications. To peek into these representations - e.g., to increase interpretability of their results - probing tasks have been designed which query them for linguistic knowledge. However, designing probing tasks for lesser-resourced languages is tricky, because these often lack large-scale annotated data or (high-quality) dependency parsers as a prerequisite of probing task design in English. To investigate how to probe sentence embeddings in such cases, we investigate sensitivity of probing task results to structural design choices, conducting the first such large scale study. We show that design choices like size of the annotated probing dataset and type of classifier used for evaluation do (sometimes substantially) influence probing outcomes. We then probe embeddings in a multilingual setup with design choices that lie in a 'stable region', as we identify for English, and find that results on English do not transfer to other languages. Fairer and more comprehensive sentence-level probing evaluation should thus be carried out on multiple languages in the future. △ Less

Submitted 28 October, 2020; v1 submitted 16 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Comments: Accepted for Publication at CONLL 2020

Aspect-Controlled Neural Argument Generation

Authors: Benjamin Schiller, Johannes Daxenberger, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: We rely on arguments in our daily lives to deliver our opinions and base them on evidence, making them more convincing in turn. However, finding and formulating arguments can be challenging. In this work, we train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. We define argument asp… ▽ More We rely on arguments in our daily lives to deliver our opinions and base them on evidence, making them more convincing in turn. However, finding and formulating arguments can be challenging. In this work, we train a language model for argument generation that can be controlled on a fine-grained level to generate sentence-level arguments for a given topic, stance, and aspect. We define argument aspect detection as a necessary method to allow this fine-granular control and crowdsource a dataset with 5,032 arguments annotated with aspects. Our evaluation shows that our generation model is able to generate high-quality, aspect-specific arguments. Moreover, these arguments can be used to improve the performance of stance detection models via data augmentation and to generate counter-arguments. We publish all datasets and code to fine-tune the language model. △ Less

Submitted 30 April, 2020; originally announced May 2020.

Stance Detection Benchmark: How Robust Is Your Stance Detection?

Authors: Benjamin Schiller, Johannes Daxenberger, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: Stance Detection (StD) aims to detect an author's stance towards a certain topic or claim and has become a key component in applications like fake news detection, claim validation, and argument search. However, while stance is easily detected by humans, machine learning models are clearly falling short of this task. Given the major differences in dataset sizes and framing of StD (e.g. number of cl… ▽ More Stance Detection (StD) aims to detect an author's stance towards a certain topic or claim and has become a key component in applications like fake news detection, claim validation, and argument search. However, while stance is easily detected by humans, machine learning models are clearly falling short of this task. Given the major differences in dataset sizes and framing of StD (e.g. number of classes and inputs), we introduce a StD benchmark that learns from ten StD datasets of various domains in a multi-dataset learning (MDL) setting, as well as from related tasks via transfer learning. Within this benchmark setup, we are able to present new state-of-the-art results on five of the datasets. Yet, the models still perform well below human capabilities and even simple adversarial attacks severely hurt the performance of MDL models. Deeper investigation into this phenomenon suggests the existence of biases inherited from multiple datasets by design. Our analysis emphasizes the need of focus on robustness and de-biasing strategies in multi-task learning approaches. The benchmark dataset and code is made available. △ Less

Submitted 6 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Classification and Clustering of Arguments with Contextualized Word Embeddings

Authors: Nils Reimers, Benjamin Schiller, Tilman Beck, Johannes Daxenberger, Christian Stab, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: We experiment with two recent contextualized word embedding methods (ELMo and BERT) in the context of open-domain argument search. For the first time, we show how to leverage the power of contextualized word embeddings to classify and cluster topic-dependent arguments, achieving impressive results on both tasks and across multiple datasets. For argument classification, we improve the state-of-the-… ▽ More We experiment with two recent contextualized word embedding methods (ELMo and BERT) in the context of open-domain argument search. For the first time, we show how to leverage the power of contextualized word embeddings to classify and cluster topic-dependent arguments, achieving impressive results on both tasks and across multiple datasets. For argument classification, we improve the state-of-the-art for the UKP Sentential Argument Mining Corpus by 20.8 percentage points and for the IBM Debater - Evidence Sentences dataset by 7.4 percentage points. For the understudied task of argument clustering, we propose a pre-training step which improves by 7.8 percentage points over strong baselines on a novel dataset, and by 12.3 percentage points for the Argument Facet Similarity (AFS) Corpus. △ Less

Submitted 24 June, 2019; originally announced June 2019.

Comments: Conference paper at ACL 2019

Fine-Grained Argument Unit Recognition and Classification

Authors: Dietrich Trautmann, Johannes Daxenberger, Christian Stab, Hinrich Schütze, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: Prior work has commonly defined argument retrieval from heterogeneous document collections as a sentence-level classification task. Consequently, argument retrieval suffers both from low recall and from sentence segmentation errors making it difficult for humans and machines to consume the arguments. In this work, we argue that the task should be performed on a more fine-grained level of sequence… ▽ More Prior work has commonly defined argument retrieval from heterogeneous document collections as a sentence-level classification task. Consequently, argument retrieval suffers both from low recall and from sentence segmentation errors making it difficult for humans and machines to consume the arguments. In this work, we argue that the task should be performed on a more fine-grained level of sequence labeling. For this, we define the task as Argument Unit Recognition and Classification (AURC). We present a dataset of arguments from heterogeneous sources annotated as spans of tokens within a sentence, as well as with a corresponding stance. We show that and how such difficult argument annotations can be effectively collected through crowdsourcing with high interannotator agreement. The new benchmark, AURC-8, contains up to 15% more arguments per topic as compared to annotations on the sentence level. We identify a number of methods targeted at AURC sequence labeling, achieving close to human performance on known domains. Further analysis also reveals that, contrary to previous approaches, our methods are more robust against sentence segmentation errors. We publicly release our code and the AURC-8 dataset. △ Less

Submitted 21 November, 2019; v1 submitted 21 April, 2019; originally announced April 2019.

Comments: AAAI 2020

Cross-lingual Argumentation Mining: Machine Translation (and a bit of Projection) is All You Need!

Authors: Steffen Eger, Johannes Daxenberger, Christian Stab, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: Argumentation mining (AM) requires the identification of complex discourse structures and has lately been applied with success monolingually. In this work, we show that the existing resources are, however, not adequate for assessing cross-lingual AM, due to their heterogeneity or lack of complexity. We therefore create suitable parallel corpora by (human and machine) translating a popular AM datas… ▽ More Argumentation mining (AM) requires the identification of complex discourse structures and has lately been applied with success monolingually. In this work, we show that the existing resources are, however, not adequate for assessing cross-lingual AM, due to their heterogeneity or lack of complexity. We therefore create suitable parallel corpora by (human and machine) translating a popular AM dataset consisting of persuasive student essays into German, French, Spanish, and Chinese. We then compare (i) annotation projection and (ii) bilingual word embeddings based direct transfer strategies for cross-lingual AM, finding that the former performs considerably better and almost eliminates the loss from cross-lingual transfer. Moreover, we find that annotation projection works equally well when using either costly human or cheap machine translations. Our code and data are available at \url{http://github.com/UKPLab/coling2018-xling_argument_mining}. △ Less

Submitted 24 July, 2018; originally announced July 2018.

Comments: Accepted at Coling 2018

Multi-Task Learning for Argumentation Mining in Low-Resource Settings

Authors: Claudia Schulz, Steffen Eger, Johannes Daxenberger, Tobias Kahse, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: We investigate whether and where multi-task learning (MTL) can improve performance on NLP problems related to argumentation mining (AM), in particular argument component identification. Our results show that MTL performs particularly well (and better than single-task learning) when little training data is available for the main task, a common scenario in AM. Our findings challenge previous assumpt… ▽ More We investigate whether and where multi-task learning (MTL) can improve performance on NLP problems related to argumentation mining (AM), in particular argument component identification. Our results show that MTL performs particularly well (and better than single-task learning) when little training data is available for the main task, a common scenario in AM. Our findings challenge previous assumptions that conceptualizations across AM datasets are divergent and that MTL is difficult for semantic or higher-level tasks. △ Less

Submitted 4 May, 2018; v1 submitted 11 April, 2018; originally announced April 2018.

Comments: Accepted at NAACL 2018

What is the Essence of a Claim? Cross-Domain Claim Identification

Authors: Johannes Daxenberger, Steffen Eger, Ivan Habernal, Christian Stab, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: Argument mining has become a popular research area in NLP. It typically includes the identification of argumentative components, e.g. claims, as the central component of an argument. We perform a qualitative analysis across six different datasets and show that these appear to conceptualize claims quite differently. To learn about the consequences of such different conceptualizations of claim for p… ▽ More Argument mining has become a popular research area in NLP. It typically includes the identification of argumentative components, e.g. claims, as the central component of an argument. We perform a qualitative analysis across six different datasets and show that these appear to conceptualize claims quite differently. To learn about the consequences of such different conceptualizations of claim for practical applications, we carried out extensive experiments using state-of-the-art feature-rich and deep learning systems, to identify claims in a cross-domain fashion. While the divergent perception of claims in different datasets is indeed harmful to cross-domain classification, we show that there are shared properties on the lexical level as well as system configurations that can help to overcome these gaps. △ Less

Submitted 13 September, 2017; v1 submitted 24 April, 2017; originally announced April 2017.

Comments: Published at EMNLP 2017: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D/D17/D17-1217.pdf

Neural End-to-End Learning for Computational Argumentation Mining

Authors: Steffen Eger, Johannes Daxenberger, Iryna Gurevych

Abstract: We investigate neural techniques for end-to-end computational argumentation mining (AM). We frame AM both as a token-based dependency parsing and as a token-based sequence tagging problem, including a multi-task learning setup. Contrary to models that operate on the argument component level, we find that framing AM as dependency parsing leads to subpar performance results. In contrast, less comple… ▽ More We investigate neural techniques for end-to-end computational argumentation mining (AM). We frame AM both as a token-based dependency parsing and as a token-based sequence tagging problem, including a multi-task learning setup. Contrary to models that operate on the argument component level, we find that framing AM as dependency parsing leads to subpar performance results. In contrast, less complex (local) tagging models based on BiLSTMs perform robustly across classification scenarios, being able to catch long-range dependencies inherent to the AM problem. Moreover, we find that jointly learning 'natural' subtasks, in a multi-task learning setup, improves performance. △ Less

Submitted 22 April, 2017; v1 submitted 20 April, 2017; originally announced April 2017.

Comments: To be published at ACL 2017