Recent improvements in machine-reading technologies attracted much attention to automation problems and their possibilities. In this context, WNUT 2020 introduces a Name Entity Recognition (NER) task based on wet laboratory procedures. In this paper, we present a 3-step method based on deep neural language models that reported the best overall exact match F1-score (77.99%) of the competition. By fine-tuning 10 times, 10 different pretrained language models, this work shows the advantage of having more models in an ensemble based on a majority of votes strategy. On top of that, having 100 different models allowed us to analyse the combinations of ensemble that demonstrated the impact of having multiple pretrained models versus fine-tuning a pretrained model multiple times.

Named entity recognition (NER) is key for biomedical applications as it allows knowledge discovery in free text data. As entities are semantic phrases, their meaning is conditioned to the context to avoid ambiguity. In this work, we explore contextualized language models for NER in French biomedical text as part of the Défi Fouille de Textes challenge. Our best approach achieved an F1 -measure of 66% for symptoms and signs, and pathology categories, being top 1 for subtask 1. For anatomy, dose, exam, mode, moment, substance, treatment, and value categories, it achieved an F1 -measure of 75% (subtask 2). If considered all categories, our model achieved the best result in the challenge, with an F1 -measure of 72%. The use of an ensemble of neural language models proved to be very effective, improving a CRF baseline by up to 28% and a single specialised language model by 4%.

We created a corpus of utterances that attempt to save face from parliamentary debates and use it to automatically analyze the language of reputation defence. Our proposed model that incorporates information regarding threats to reputation can predict reputation defence language with high confidence. Further experiments and evaluations on different datasets show that the model is able to generalize to new utterances and can predict the language of reputation defence in a new dataset.

We present an automated approach to distinguish true, false, stretch, and dodge statements in questions and answers in the Canadian Parliament. We leverage the truthfulness annotations of a U.S. fact-checking corpus by training a neural net model and incorporating the prediction probabilities into our models. We find that in concert with other linguistic features, these probabilities can improve the multi-class classification results. We further show that dodge statements can be detected with an F1 measure as high as 82.57% in binary classification settings.

We propose a new task of automatically detecting reputation defence strategies in the field of computational argumentation. We cast the problem as relation classification, where given a pair of reputation threat and reputation defence, we determine the reputation defence strategy. We annotate a dataset of parliamentary questions and answers with reputation defence strategies. We then propose a model based on supervised learning to address the detection of these strategies, and report promising experimental results.

Previous approaches to generic frame classification analyze frames at the document level. Here, we propose a supervised based approach based on deep neural networks and distributional representations for classifying frames at the sentence level in news articles. We conduct our experiments on the publicly available Media Frames Corpus compiled from the U.S. Newspapers. Using (B)LSTMs and GRU networks to represent the meaning of frames, we demonstrate that our approach yields at least 14-point improvement over several baseline methods.

Research on computational argumentation faces the problem of how to automatically assess the quality of an argument or argumentation. While different quality dimensions have been approached in natural language processing, a common understanding of argumentation quality is still missing. This paper presents the first holistic work on computational argumentation quality in natural language. We comprehensively survey the diverse existing theories and approaches to assess logical, rhetorical, and dialectical quality dimensions, and we derive a systematic taxonomy from these. In addition, we provide a corpus with 320 arguments, annotated for all 15 dimensions in the taxonomy. Our results establish a common ground for research on computational argumentation quality assessment.

Argumentation quality is viewed differently in argumentation theory and in practical assessment approaches. This paper studies to what extent the views match empirically. We find that most observations on quality phrased spontaneously are in fact adequately represented by theory. Even more, relative comparisons of arguments in practice correlate with absolute quality ratings based on theory. Our results clarify how the two views can learn from each other.