Among the most critical limitations of deep learning NLP models are their lack of interpretability, and their reliance on spurious correlations. Prior work proposed various approaches to interpreting the black-box models to unveil the spurious correlations, but the research was primarily used in human-computer interaction scenarios. It still remains underexplored whether or how such model interpretations can be used to automatically “unlearn” confounding features. In this work, we propose influence tuning—a procedure that leverages model interpretations to update the model parameters towards a plausible interpretation (rather than an interpretation that relies on spurious patterns in the data) in addition to learning to predict the task labels. We show that in a controlled setup, influence tuning can help deconfounding the model from spurious patterns in data, significantly outperforming baseline methods that use adversarial training.

Modern deep learning models for NLP are notoriously opaque. This has motivated the development of methods for interpreting such models, e.g., via gradient-based saliency maps or the visualization of attention weights. Such approaches aim to provide explanations for a particular model prediction by highlighting important words in the corresponding input text. While this might be useful for tasks where decisions are explicitly influenced by individual tokens in the input, we suspect that such highlighting is not suitable for tasks where model decisions should be driven by more complex reasoning. In this work, we investigate the use of influence functions for NLP, providing an alternative approach to interpreting neural text classifiers. Influence functions explain the decisions of a model by identifying influential training examples. Despite the promise of this approach, influence functions have not yet been extensively evaluated in the context of NLP, a gap addressed by this work. We conduct a comparison between influence functions and common word-saliency methods on representative tasks. As suspected, we find that influence functions are particularly useful for natural language inference, a task in which ‘saliency maps’ may not have clear interpretation. Furthermore, we develop a new quantitative measure based on influence functions that can reveal artifacts in training data.

Modern toxic speech detectors are incompetent in recognizing disguised offensive language, such as adversarial attacks that deliberately avoid known toxic lexicons, or manifestations of implicit bias. Building a large annotated dataset for such veiled toxicity can be very expensive. In this work, we propose a framework aimed at fortifying existing toxic speech detectors without a large labeled corpus of veiled toxicity. Just a handful of probing examples are used to surface orders of magnitude more disguised offenses. We augment the toxic speech detector’s training data with these discovered offensive examples, thereby making it more robust to veiled toxicity while preserving its utility in detecting overt toxicity.

Understanding the dynamics of international politics is important yet challenging for civilians. In this work, we explore unsupervised neural models to infer relations between nations from news articles. We extend existing models by incorporating shallow linguistics information and propose a new automatic evaluation metric that aligns relationship dynamics with manually annotated key events. As understanding international relations requires carefully analyzing complex relationships, we conduct in-person human evaluations with three groups of participants. Overall, humans prefer the outputs of our model and give insightful feedback that suggests future directions for human-centered models. Furthermore, our model reveals interesting regional differences in news coverage. For instance, with respect to US-China relations, Singaporean media focus more on “strengthening” and “purchasing”, while US media focus more on “criticizing” and “denouncing”.

Contextualized word embeddings such as ELMo and BERT provide a foundation for strong performance across a wide range of natural language processing tasks by pretraining on large corpora of unlabeled text. However, the applicability of this approach is unknown when the target domain varies substantially from the pretraining corpus. We are specifically interested in the scenario in which labeled data is available in only a canonical source domain such as newstext, and the target domain is distinct from both the labeled and pretraining texts. To address this scenario, we propose domain-adaptive fine-tuning, in which the contextualized embeddings are adapted by masked language modeling on text from the target domain. We test this approach on sequence labeling in two challenging domains: Early Modern English and Twitter. Both domains differ substantially from existing pretraining corpora, and domain-adaptive fine-tuning yields substantial improvements over strong BERT baselines, with particularly impressive results on out-of-vocabulary words. We conclude that domain-adaptive fine-tuning offers a simple and effective approach for the unsupervised adaptation of sequence labeling to difficult new domains.

Language is shaped by the relationships between the speaker/writer and the audience, the object of discussion, and the talk itself. In turn, language is used to reshape these relationships over the course of an interaction. Computational researchers have succeeded in operationalizing sentiment, formality, and politeness, but each of these constructs captures only some aspects of social and relational meaning. Theories of interactional stancetaking have been put forward as holistic accounts, but until now, these theories have been applied only through detailed qualitative analysis of (portions of) a few individual conversations. In this article, we propose a new computational operationalization of interpersonal stancetaking. We begin with annotations of three linked stance dimensions—affect, investment, and alignment—on 68 conversation threads from the online platform Reddit. Using these annotations, we investigate thread structure and linguistic properties of stancetaking in online conversations. We identify lexical features that characterize the extremes along each stancetaking dimension, and show that these stancetaking properties can be predicted with moderate accuracy from bag-of-words features, even with a relatively small labeled training set. These quantitative analyses are supplemented by extensive qualitative analysis, highlighting the compatibility of computational and qualitative methods in synthesizing evidence about the creation of interactional meaning.