Unsupervised commonsense reasoning (UCR) is becoming increasingly popular as the construction of commonsense reasoning datasets is expensive, and they are inevitably limited in their scope. A popular approach to UCR is to fine-tune language models with external knowledge (e.g., knowledge graphs), but this usually requires a large number of training examples. In this paper, we propose to transform the downstream multiple choice question answering task into a simpler binary classification task by ranking all candidate answers according to their reasonableness. To this end, for training the model, we convert the knowledge graph triples into reasonable and unreasonable texts. Extensive experimental results show the effectiveness of our approach on various multiple choice question answering benchmarks. Furthermore, compared with existing UCR approaches using KGs, ours is less data hungry.

Event Detection (ED) is a critical task that aims to identify events of certain types in plain text. Neural models have achieved great success on ED, thus coming with a desire for higher interpretability. Existing works mainly exploit words or phrases of the input text to explain models’ inner mechanisms. However, for ED, the event structure, comprising of an event trigger and a set of arguments, are more enlightening clues to explain model behaviors. To this end, we propose a Trigger-Argument based Explanation method (TAE), which can utilize event structure knowledge to uncover a faithful interpretation for the existing ED models at neuron level. Specifically, we design group, sparsity, support mechanisms to construct the event structure from structuralization, compactness, and faithfulness perspectives. We evaluate our model on the large-scale MAVEN and the widely-used ACE 2005 datasets, and observe that TAE is able to reveal the process by which the model predicts. Experimental results also demonstrate that TAE can not only improve the interpretability on standard evaluation metrics, but also effectively facilitate the human understanding.

We investigate the knowledge graph entity typing task which aims at inferring plausible entity types. In this paper, we propose a novel Transformer-based Entity Typing (TET) approach, effectively encoding the content of neighbours of an entity by means of a transformer mechanism. More precisely, TET is composed of three different mechanisms: a local transformer allowing to infer missing entity types by independently encoding the information provided by each of its neighbours; a global transformer aggregating the information of all neighbours of an entity into a single long sequence to reason about more complex entity types; and a context transformer integrating neighbours content in a differentiated way through information exchange between neighbour pairs, while preserving the graph structure. Furthermore, TET uses information about class membership of types to semantically strengthen the representation of an entity. Experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate the superior performance of TET compared to the state-of-the-art.

Bar exams provide a key watershed by which legal professionals demonstrate their knowledge of the law and its application. Passing the bar entitles one to practice the law in a given jurisdiction. The bar provides an excellent benchmark for the performance of legal information systems since passing the bar would arguably signal that the system has acquired key aspects of legal reason on a par with a human lawyer. The paper provides a corpus and experimental results with material derived from a real bar exam, treating the problem as a form of textual entailment from the question to an answer. The providers of the bar exam material set the Gold Standard, which is the answer key. The experiments carried out using the ‘out of the box’ the Excitement Open Platform for textual entailment. The results and evaluation show that the tool can identify wrong answers (non-entailment) with a high F1 score, but it performs poorly in identifying the correct answer (entailment). The results provide a baseline performance measure against which to evaluate future improvements. The reasons for the poor performance are examined, and proposals are made to augment the tool in the future. The corpus facilitates experimentation by other researchers.