Many tasks related to Computational Social Science and Web Content Analysis involve classifying pieces of text based on the claims they contain. State-of-the-art approaches usually involve fine-tuning models on large annotated datasets, which are costly to produce. In light of this, we propose and release a qualitative and versatile few-shot learning methodology as a common paradigm for any claim-based textual classification task. This methodology involves defining the classes as arbitrarily sophisticated taxonomies of claims, and using Natural Language Inference models to obtain the textual entailment between these and a corpus of interest. The performance of these models is then boosted by annotating a minimal sample of data points, dynamically sampled using the well-established statistical heuristic of Probabilistic Bisection. We illustrate this methodology in the context of three tasks: climate change contrarianism detection, topic/stance classification and depression-relates symptoms detection. This approach rivals traditional pre-train/fine-tune approaches while drastically reducing the need for data annotation.
We propose WIBA, a novel framework and suite of methods that enable the comprehensive understanding of "What Is Being Argued" across contexts. Our approach develops a comprehensive framework that detects: (a) the existence, (b) the topic, and (c) the stance of an argument, correctly accounting for the logical dependence among the three tasks. Our algorithm leverages the fine-tuning and prompt-engineering of Large Language Models. We evaluate our approach and show that it performs well in all the three capabilities. First, we develop and release an Argument Detection model that can classify a piece of text as an argument with an F1 score between 79% and 86% on three different benchmark datasets. Second, we release a language model that can identify the topic being argued in a sentence, be it implicit or explicit, with an average similarity score of 71%, outperforming current naive methods by nearly 40%. Finally, we develop a method for Argument Stance Classification, and evaluate the capability of our approach, showing it achieves a classification F1 score between 71% and 78% across three diverse benchmark datasets. Our evaluation demonstrates that WIBA allows the comprehensive understanding of What Is Being Argued in large corpora across diverse contexts, which is of core interest to many applications in linguistics, communication, and social and computer science. To facilitate accessibility to the advancements outlined in this work, we release WIBA as a free open access platform (wiba.dev).
Conversational prompt-engineering-based large language models (LLMs) have enabled targeted control over the output creation, enhancing versatility, adaptability and adhoc retrieval. From another perspective, digital misinformation has reached alarming levels. The anonymity, availability and reach of social media offer fertile ground for rumours to propagate. This work proposes to leverage the advancement of prompting-dependent LLMs to combat misinformation by extending the research efforts of the RumourEval task on its Twitter dataset. To the end, we employ two prompting-based LLM variants (GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4) to extend the two RumourEval subtasks: (1) veracity prediction, and (2) stance classification. For veracity prediction, three classifications schemes are experimented per GPT variant. Each scheme is tested in zero-, one- and few-shot settings. Our best results outperform the precedent ones by a substantial margin. For stance classification, prompting-based-approaches show comparable performance to prior results, with no improvement over finetuning methods. Rumour stance subtask is also extended beyond the original setting to allow multiclass classification. All of the generated predictions for both subtasks are equipped with confidence scores determining their trustworthiness degree according to the LLM, and post-hoc justifications for explainability and interpretability purposes. Our primary aim is AI for social good.
A main goal of Argument Mining (AM) is to analyze an author's stance. Unlike previous AM datasets focusing only on text, the shared task at the 10th Workshop on Argument Mining introduces a dataset including both text and images. Importantly, these images contain both visual elements and optical characters. Our new framework, TILFA (A Unified Framework for Text, Image, and Layout Fusion in Argument Mining), is designed to handle this mixed data. It excels at not only understanding text but also detecting optical characters and recognizing layout details in images. Our model significantly outperforms existing baselines, earning our team, KnowComp, the 1st place in the leaderboard of Argumentative Stance Classification subtask in this shared task.
Stance classification, the task of predicting the viewpoint of an author on a subject of interest, has long been a focal point of research in domains ranging from social science to machine learning. Current stance detection methods rely predominantly on manual annotation of sentences, followed by training a supervised machine learning model. However, this manual annotation process requires laborious annotation effort, and thus hampers its potential to generalize across different contexts. In this work, we investigate the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a stance detection methodology that can reduce or even eliminate the need for manual annotations. We investigate 10 open-source models and 7 prompting schemes, finding that LLMs are competitive with in-domain supervised models but are not necessarily consistent in their performance. We also fine-tuned the LLMs, but discovered that fine-tuning process does not necessarily lead to better performance. In general, we discover that LLMs do not routinely outperform their smaller supervised machine learning models, and thus call for stance detection to be a benchmark for which LLMs also optimize for. The code used in this study is available at \url{https://github.com/ijcruic/LLM-Stance-Labeling}
Argument mining involves multiple sub-tasks that automatically identify argumentative elements, such as claim detection, evidence extraction, stance classification, etc. However, each subtask alone is insufficient for a thorough understanding of the argumentative structure and reasoning process. To learn a complete view of an argument essay and capture the interdependence among argumentative components, we need to know what opinions people hold (i.e., claims), why those opinions are valid (i.e., supporting evidence), which source the evidence comes from (i.e., evidence type), and how those claims react to the debating topic (i.e., stance). In this work, we for the first time propose a challenging argument quadruplet extraction task (AQE), which can provide an all-in-one extraction of four argumentative components, i.e., claims, evidence, evidence types, and stances. To support this task, we construct a large-scale and challenging dataset. However, there is no existing method that can solve the argument quadruplet extraction. To fill this gap, we propose a novel quad-tagging augmented generative approach, which leverages a quadruplet tagging module to augment the training of the generative framework. The experimental results on our dataset demonstrate the empirical superiority of our proposed approach over several strong baselines.
Traditionally, a debate usually requires a manual preparation process, including reading plenty of articles, selecting the claims, identifying the stances of the claims, seeking the evidence for the claims, etc. As the AI debate attracts more attention these years, it is worth exploring the methods to automate the tedious process involved in the debating system. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive and large dataset named IAM, which can be applied to a series of argument mining tasks, including claim extraction, stance classification, evidence extraction, etc. Our dataset is collected from over 1k articles related to 123 topics. Near 70k sentences in the dataset are fully annotated based on their argument properties (e.g., claims, stances, evidence, etc.). We further propose two new integrated argument mining tasks associated with the debate preparation process: (1) claim extraction with stance classification (CESC) and (2) claim-evidence pair extraction (CEPE). We adopt a pipeline approach and an end-to-end method for each integrated task separately. Promising experimental results are reported to show the values and challenges of our proposed tasks, and motivate future research on argument mining.
We study the problem of performing automatic stance classification on social media with neural architectures such as BERT. Although these architectures deliver impressive results, their level is not yet comparable to the one of humans and they might produce errors that have a significant impact on the downstream task (e.g., fact-checking). To improve the performance, we present a new neural architecture where the input also includes automatically generated negated perspectives over a given claim. The model is jointly learned to make simultaneously multiple predictions, which can be used either to improve the classification of the original perspective or to filter out doubtful predictions. In the first case, we propose a weakly supervised method for combining the predictions into a final one. In the second case, we show that using the confidence scores to remove doubtful predictions allows our method to achieve human-like performance over the retained information, which is still a sizable part of the original input.
Given the rapidly evolving nature of social media and people's views, word usage changes over time. Consequently, the performance of a classifier trained on old textual data can drop dramatically when tested on newer data. While research in stance classification has advanced in recent years, no effort has been invested in making these classifiers have persistent performance over time. To study this phenomenon we introduce two novel large-scale, longitudinal stance datasets. We then evaluate the performance persistence of stance classifiers over time and demonstrate how it decays as the temporal gap between training and testing data increases. We propose a novel approach to mitigate this performance drop, which is based on temporal adaptation of the word embeddings used for training the stance classifier. This enables us to make use of readily available unlabelled data from the current time period instead of expensive annotation efforts. We propose and compare several approaches to embedding adaptation and find that the Incremental Temporal Alignment (ITA) model leads to the best results in reducing performance drop over time.
Automated fact-checking systems verify claims against evidence to predict their veracity. In real-world scenarios, the retrieved evidence may not unambiguously support or refute the claim and yield conflicting but valid interpretations. Existing fact-checking datasets assume that the models developed with them predict a single veracity label for each claim, thus discouraging the handling of such ambiguity. To address this issue we present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. It contains fine-grained evidence annotations of 50k passages from 5k Wikipedia pages. We analyze the disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC, observing a strong correlation of annotator disagreement with linguistic phenomena such as underspecification and probabilistic reasoning. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels and find that a pipeline that learns the label distribution for sentence-level evidence selection and veracity prediction yields the best performance. We compare models trained on different subsets of AmbiFC and show that models trained on the ambiguous instances perform better when faced with the identified linguistic phenomena.
On June 24, 2018, Turkey conducted a highly consequential election in which the Turkish people elected their president and parliament in the first election under a new presidential system. During the election period, the Turkish people extensively shared their political opinions on Twitter. One aspect of polarization among the electorate was support for or opposition to the reelection of Recep Tayyip Erdo\u{g}an. In this paper, we present an unsupervised method for target-specific stance detection in a polarized setting, specifically Turkish politics, achieving 90% precision in identifying user stances, while maintaining more than 80% recall. The method involves representing users in an embedding space using Google's Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) based multilingual universal sentence encoder. The representations are then projected onto a lower dimensional space in a manner that reflects similarities and are consequently clustered. We show the effectiveness of our method in properly clustering users of divergent groups across multiple targets that include political figures, different groups, and parties. We perform our analysis on a large dataset of 108M Turkish election-related tweets along with the timeline tweets of 168k Turkish users, who authored 213M tweets. Given the resultant user stances, we are able to observe correlations between topics and compute topic polarization.
The Internet is rife with flourishing rumours that spread through microblogs and social media. Recent work has shown that analysing the stance of the crowd towards a rumour is a good indicator for its veracity. One state-of-the-art system uses an LSTM neural network to automatically classify stance for posts on Twitter by considering the context of a whole branch, while another, more simple Decision Tree classifier, performs at least as well by performing careful feature engineering. One approach to predict the veracity of a rumour is to use stance as the only feature for a Hidden Markov Model (HMM). This thesis generates a stance-annotated Reddit dataset for the Danish language, and implements various models for stance classification. Out of these, a Linear Support Vector Machine provides the best results with an accuracy of 0.76 and macro F1 score of 0.42. Furthermore, experiments show that stance labels can be used across languages and platforms with a HMM to predict the veracity of rumours, achieving an accuracy of 0.82 and F1 score of 0.67. Even higher scores are achieved by relying only on the Danish dataset. In this case veracity prediction scores an accuracy of 0.83 and an F1 of 0.68. Finally, when using automatic stance labels for the HMM, only a small drop in performance is observed, showing that the implemented system can have practical applications.
This paper describes our system submitted to SemEval 2019 Task 7: RumourEval 2019: Determining Rumour Veracity and Support for Rumours, Subtask A (Gorrell et al., 2019). The challenge focused on classifying whether posts from Twitter and Reddit support, deny, query, or comment a hidden rumour, truthfulness of which is the topic of an underlying discussion thread. We formulate the problem as a stance classification, determining the rumour stance of a post with respect to the previous thread post and the source thread post. The recent BERT architecture was employed to build an end-to-end system which has reached the F1 score of 61.67% on the provided test data. It finished at the 2nd place in the competition, without any hand-crafted features, only 0.2% behind the winner.
Analysing how people react to rumours associated with news in social media is an important task to prevent the spreading of misinformation, which is nowadays widely recognized as a dangerous tendency. In social media conversations, users show different stances and attitudes towards rumourous stories. Some users take a definite stance, supporting or denying the rumour at issue, while others just comment it, or ask for additional evidence related to the veracity of the rumour. On this line, a new shared task has been proposed at SemEval-2017 (Task 8, SubTask A), which is focused on rumour stance classification in English tweets. The goal is predicting user stance towards emerging rumours in Twitter, in terms of supporting, denying, querying, or commenting the original rumour, looking at the conversation threads originated by the rumour. This paper describes a new approach to this task, where the use of conversation-based and affective-based features, covering different facets of affect, has been explored. Our classification model outperforms the best-performing systems for stance classification at SemEval-2017 Task 8, showing the effectiveness of the feature set proposed.
Stance detection is a critical component of rumour and fake news identification. It involves the extraction of the stance a particular author takes related to a given claim, both expressed in text. This paper investigates stance classification for Russian. It introduces a new dataset, RuStance, of Russian tweets and news comments from multiple sources, covering multiple stories, as well as text classification approaches to stance detection as benchmarks over this data in this language. As well as presenting this openly-available dataset, the first of its kind for Russian, the paper presents a baseline for stance prediction in the language.
The 2017 Fake News Challenge Stage 1 (FNC-1) shared task addressed a stance classification task as a crucial first step towards detecting fake news. To date, there is no in-depth analysis paper to critically discuss FNC-1's experimental setup, reproduce the results, and draw conclusions for next-generation stance classification methods. In this paper, we provide such an in-depth analysis for the three top-performing systems. We first find that FNC-1's proposed evaluation metric favors the majority class, which can be easily classified, and thus overestimates the true discriminative power of the methods. Therefore, we propose a new F1-based metric yielding a changed system ranking. Next, we compare the features and architectures used, which leads to a novel feature-rich stacked LSTM model that performs on par with the best systems, but is superior in predicting minority classes. To understand the methods' ability to generalize, we derive a new dataset and perform both in-domain and cross-domain experiments. Our qualitative and quantitative study helps interpreting the original FNC-1 scores and understand which features help improving performance and why. Our new dataset and all source code used during the reproduction study are publicly available for future research.