Sentence Compression is the task of generating a shorter, yet grammatical, version of a given sentence, preserving the essence of the original sentence. This paper proposes a Black-Box Optimizer for Compression (B-BOC): given a black-box compression algorithm and assuming not all sentences need be compressed – find the best candidates for compression in order to maximize both compression rate and quality. Given a required compression ratio, we consider two scenarios: (i) single-sentence compression, and (ii) sentences-sequence compression. In the first scenario our optimizer is trained to predict how well each sentence could be compressed while meeting the specified ratio requirement. In the latter, the desired compression ratio is applied to a sequence of sentences (e.g., a paragraph) as a whole, rather than on each individual sentence. To achieve that we use B-BOC to assign an optimal compression ratio to each sentence, then cast it as a Knapsack problem which we solve using bounded dynamic programming. We evaluate B-BOC on both scenarios on three datasets, demonstrating that our optimizer improves both accuracy and Rouge-F1-score compared to direct application of other compression algorithms.

Linguistic accommodation is the process in which speakers adjust their accent, diction, vocabulary, and other aspects of language according to the communication style of one another. Previous research has shown how linguistic accommodation correlates with gaps in the power and status of the speakers and the way it promotes approval and discussion efficiency. In this work, we provide a novel perspective on the phenomena, exploring its correlation with the open-mindedness of a speaker, rather than to her social status. We process thousands of unstructured argumentative discussions that took place in Reddit’s Change My View (CMV) subreddit, demonstrating that open-mindedness relates to the assumed role of a speaker in different contexts. On the discussion level, we surprisingly find that discussions that reach agreement present lower levels of accommodation.

Manual annotations are a prerequisite for many applications of machine learning. However, weaknesses in the annotation process itself are easy to overlook. In particular, scholars often choose what information to give to annotators without examining these decisions empirically. For subjective tasks such as sentiment analysis, sarcasm, and stance detection, such choices can impact results. Here, for the task of political stance detection on Twitter, we show that providing too little context can result in noisy and uncertain annotations, whereas providing too strong a context may cause it to outweigh other signals. To characterize and reduce these biases, we develop ConStance, a general model for reasoning about annotations across information conditions. Given conflicting labels produced by multiple annotators seeing the same instances with different contexts, ConStance simultaneously estimates gold standard labels and also learns a classifier for new instances. We show that the classifier learned by ConStance outperforms a variety of baselines at predicting political stance, while the model’s interpretable parameters shed light on the effects of each context.