In this study, we investigate the potential of language models (LMs) in aiding patients experiencing anomia, a difficulty identifying the names of items. Identifying the intended target item from patient’s circumlocution involves the two challenges of term failure and error. (1) The terms relevant to identifying the item remain unseen. (2) What makes the challenge unique is inherent perturbed terms by semantic paraphasia, which are not exactly related to the target item, hindering the identification process. To address each, we propose robustifying the model from semantically paraphasic errors and enhancing the model with unseen terms with gradient-based selective augmentation (GradSelect). Specifically, the gradient value controls augmented data quality amid semantic errors, while the gradient variance guides the inclusion of unseen but relevant terms. Due to limited domain-specific datasets, we evaluate the model on the Tip of the Tongue dataset as an intermediary task and then apply our findings to real patient data from AphasiaBank. Our results demonstrate strong performance against baselines, aiding anomia patients by addressing the outlined challenges.

Accurately understanding temporal relations between events is a critical building block of diverse tasks, such as temporal reading comprehension (TRC) and relation extraction (TRE). For example in TRC, we need to understand the temporal semantic differences between the following two questions that are lexically near-identical: “What finished right before the decision?” or “What finished right after the decision?”. To discern the two questions, existing solutions have relied on answer overlaps as a proxy label to contrast similar and dissimilar questions. However, we claim that answer overlap can lead to unreliable results, due to spurious overlaps of two dissimilar questions with coincidentally identical answers. To address the issue, we propose a novel approach that elicits proper reasoning behaviors through a module for predicting time spans of events. We introduce the Timeline Reasoning Network (TRN) operating in a two-step inductive reasoning process: In the first step model initially answers each question with semantic and syntactic information. The next step chains multiple questions on the same event to predict a timeline, which is then used to ground the answers. Results on the TORQUE and TB-dense, TRC, and TRE tasks respectively, demonstrate that TRN outperforms previous methods by effectively resolving the spurious overlaps using the predicted timeline.