Most events in the world receive at most brief coverage by the news media. Occasionally, however, an event will trigger a media storm, with voluminous and widespread coverage lasting for weeks instead of days. In this work, we develop and apply a pairwise article similarity model, allowing us to identify story clusters in corpora covering local and national online news, and thereby create a comprehensive corpus of media storms over a nearly two year period. Using this corpus, we investigate media storms at a new level of granularity, allowing us to validate claims about storm evolution and topical distribution, and provide empirical support for previously hypothesized patterns of influence of storms on media coverage and intermedia agenda setting.

Measuring semantic change has thus far remained a task where methods using contextual embeddings have struggled to improve upon simpler techniques relying only on static word vectors. Moreover, many of the previously proposed approaches suffer from downsides related to scalability and ease of interpretation. We present a simplified approach to measuring semantic change using contextual embeddings, relying only on the most probable substitutes for masked terms. Not only is this approach directly interpretable, it is also far more efficient in terms of storage, achieves superior average performance across the most frequently cited datasets for this task, and allows for more nuanced investigation of change than is possible with static word vectors.

Off-the-shelf models are widely used by computational social science researchers to measure properties of text, such as sentiment. However, without access to source data it is difficult to account for domain shift, which represents a threat to validity. Here, we treat domain adaptation as a modular process that involves separate model producers and model consumers, and show how they can independently cooperate to facilitate more accurate measurements of text. We introduce two lightweight techniques for this scenario, and demonstrate that they reliably increase out-of-domain accuracy on four multi-domain text classification datasets when used with linear and contextual embedding models. We conclude with recommendations for model producers and consumers, and release models and replication code to accompany this paper.

Cosine similarity of contextual embeddings is used in many NLP tasks (e.g., QA, IR, MT) and metrics (e.g., BERTScore). Here, we uncover systematic ways in which word similarities estimated by cosine over BERT embeddings are understated and trace this effect to training data frequency. We find that relative to human judgements, cosine similarity underestimates the similarity of frequent words with other instances of the same word or other words across contexts, even after controlling for polysemy and other factors. We conjecture that this underestimation of similarity for high frequency words is due to differences in the representational geometry of high and low frequency words and provide a formal argument for the two-dimensional case.

Language models increasingly rely on massive web crawls for diverse text data. However, these sources are rife with undesirable content. As such, resources like Wikipedia, books, and news often serve as anchors for automatically selecting web text most suitable for language modeling, a process typically referred to as quality filtering. Using a new dataset of U.S. high school newspaper articles—written by students from across the country—we investigate whose language is preferred by the quality filter used for GPT-3. We find that newspapers from larger schools, located in wealthier, educated, and urban zones (ZIP codes) are more likely to be classified as high quality. We also show that this quality measurement is unaligned with other sensible metrics, such as factuality or literary acclaim. We argue that privileging any corpus as high quality entails a language ideology, and more care is needed to construct training corpora for language models, with better transparency and justification for the inclusion or exclusion of various texts.

Research in NLP is often supported by experimental results, and improved reporting of such results can lead to better understanding and more reproducible science. In this paper we analyze three statistical estimators for expected validation performance, a tool used for reporting performance (e.g., accuracy) as a function of computational budget (e.g., number of hyperparameter tuning experiments). Where previous work analyzing such estimators focused on the bias, we also examine the variance and mean squared error (MSE). In both synthetic and realistic scenarios, we evaluate three estimators and find the unbiased estimator has the highest variance, and the estimator with the smallest variance has the largest bias; the estimator with the smallest MSE strikes a balance between bias and variance, displaying a classic bias-variance tradeoff. We use expected validation performance to compare between different models, and analyze how frequently each estimator leads to drawing incorrect conclusions about which of two models performs best. We find that the two biased estimators lead to the fewest incorrect conclusions, which hints at the importance of minimizing variance and MSE.

We consider the problem of using observational data to estimate the causal effects of linguistic properties. For example, does writing a complaint politely lead to a faster response time? How much will a positive product review increase sales? This paper addresses two technical challenges related to the problem before developing a practical method. First, we formalize the causal quantity of interest as the effect of a writer’s intent, and establish the assumptions necessary to identify this from observational data. Second, in practice, we only have access to noisy proxies for the linguistic properties of interest—e.g., predictions from classifiers and lexicons. We propose an estimator for this setting and prove that its bias is bounded when we perform an adjustment for the text. Based on these results, we introduce TextCause, an algorithm for estimating causal effects of linguistic properties. The method leverages (1) distant supervision to improve the quality of noisy proxies, and (2) a pre-trained language model (BERT) to adjust for the text. We show that the proposed method outperforms related approaches when estimating the effect of Amazon review sentiment on semi-simulated sales figures. Finally, we present an applied case study investigating the effects of complaint politeness on bureaucratic response times.

Despite its importance to experimental design, statistical power (the probability that, given a real effect, an experiment will reject the null hypothesis) has largely been ignored by the NLP community. Underpowered experiments make it more difficult to discern the difference between statistical noise and meaningful model improvements, and increase the chances of exaggerated findings. By meta-analyzing a set of existing NLP papers and datasets, we characterize typical power for a variety of settings and conclude that underpowered experiments are common in the NLP literature. In particular, for several tasks in the popular GLUE benchmark, small test sets mean that most attempted comparisons to state of the art models will not be adequately powered. Similarly, based on reasonable assumptions, we find that the most typical experimental design for human rating studies will be underpowered to detect small model differences, of the sort that are frequently studied. For machine translation, we find that typical test sets of 2000 sentences have approximately 75% power to detect differences of 1 BLEU point. To improve the situation going forward, we give an overview of best practices for power analysis in NLP and release a series of notebooks to assist with future power analyses.

Citing opinions is a powerful yet understudied strategy in argumentation. For example, an environmental activist might say, “Leading scientists agree that global warming is a serious concern,” framing a clause which affirms their own stance (“that global warming is serious”) as an opinion endorsed ("[scientists] agree”) by a reputable source (“leading”). In contrast, a global warming denier might frame the same clause as the opinion of an untrustworthy source with a predicate connoting doubt: “Mistaken scientists claim [...]." Our work studies opinion-framing in the global warming (GW) debate, an increasingly partisan issue that has received little attention in NLP. We introduce DeSMOG, a dataset of stance-labeled GW sentences, and train a BERT classifier to study novel aspects of argumentation in how different sides of a debate represent their own and each other’s opinions. From 56K news articles, we find that similar linguistic devices for self-affirming and opponent-doubting discourse are used across GW-accepting and skeptic media, though GW-skeptical media shows more opponent-doubt. We also find that authors often characterize sources as hypocritical, by ascribing opinions expressing the author’s own view to source entities known to publicly endorse the opposing view. We release our stance dataset, model, and lexicons of framing devices for future work on opinion-framing and the automatic detection of GW stance.

We investigate how annotators’ insensitivity to differences in dialect can lead to racial bias in automatic hate speech detection models, potentially amplifying harm against minority populations. We first uncover unexpected correlations between surface markers of African American English (AAE) and ratings of toxicity in several widely-used hate speech datasets. Then, we show that models trained on these corpora acquire and propagate these biases, such that AAE tweets and tweets by self-identified African Americans are up to two times more likely to be labelled as offensive compared to others. Finally, we propose *dialect* and *race priming* as ways to reduce the racial bias in annotation, showing that when annotators are made explicitly aware of an AAE tweet’s dialect they are significantly less likely to label the tweet as offensive.

We introduce VAMPIRE, a lightweight pretraining framework for effective text classification when data and computing resources are limited. We pretrain a unigram document model as a variational autoencoder on in-domain, unlabeled data and use its internal states as features in a downstream classifier. Empirically, we show the relative strength of VAMPIRE against computationally expensive contextual embeddings and other popular semi-supervised baselines under low resource settings. We also find that fine-tuning to in-domain data is crucial to achieving decent performance from contextual embeddings when working with limited supervision. We accompany this paper with code to pretrain and use VAMPIRE embeddings in downstream tasks.

Research in natural language processing proceeds, in part, by demonstrating that new models achieve superior performance (e.g., accuracy) on held-out test data, compared to previous results. In this paper, we demonstrate that test-set performance scores alone are insufficient for drawing accurate conclusions about which model performs best. We argue for reporting additional details, especially performance on validation data obtained during model development. We present a novel technique for doing so: expected validation performance of the best-found model as a function of computation budget (i.e., the number of hyperparameter search trials or the overall training time). Using our approach, we find multiple recent model comparisons where authors would have reached a different conclusion if they had used more (or less) computation. Our approach also allows us to estimate the amount of computation required to obtain a given accuracy; applying it to several recently published results yields massive variation across papers, from hours to weeks. We conclude with a set of best practices for reporting experimental results which allow for robust future comparisons, and provide code to allow researchers to use our technique.

Estimating label proportions in a target corpus is a type of measurement that is useful for answering certain types of social-scientific questions. While past work has described a number of relevant approaches, nearly all are based on an assumption which we argue is invalid for many problems, particularly when dealing with human annotations. In this paper, we identify and differentiate between two relevant data generating scenarios (intrinsic vs. extrinsic labels), introduce a simple but novel method which emphasizes the importance of calibration, and then analyze and experimentally validate the appropriateness of various methods for each of the two scenarios.

Most real-world document collections involve various types of metadata, such as author, source, and date, and yet the most commonly-used approaches to modeling text corpora ignore this information. While specialized models have been developed for particular applications, few are widely used in practice, as customization typically requires derivation of a custom inference algorithm. In this paper, we build on recent advances in variational inference methods and propose a general neural framework, based on topic models, to enable flexible incorporation of metadata and allow for rapid exploration of alternative models. Our approach achieves strong performance, with a manageable tradeoff between perplexity, coherence, and sparsity. Finally, we demonstrate the potential of our framework through an exploration of a corpus of articles about US immigration.

Understanding how ideas relate to each other is a fundamental question in many domains, ranging from intellectual history to public communication. Because ideas are naturally embedded in texts, we propose the first framework to systematically characterize the relations between ideas based on their occurrence in a corpus of documents, independent of how these ideas are represented. Combining two statistics—cooccurrence within documents and prevalence correlation over time—our approach reveals a number of different ways in which ideas can cooperate and compete. For instance, two ideas can closely track each other’s prevalence over time, and yet rarely cooccur, almost like a “cold war” scenario. We observe that pairwise cooccurrence and prevalence correlation exhibit different distributions. We further demonstrate that our approach is able to uncover intriguing relations between ideas through in-depth case studies on news articles and research papers.