Keyphrase extraction aims at automatically extracting a list of “important” phrases representing the key concepts in a document. Prior approaches for unsupervised keyphrase extraction resorted to heuristic notions of phrase importance via embedding clustering or graph centrality, requiring extensive domain expertise. Our work presents a simple alternative approach which defines keyphrases as document phrases that are salient for predicting the topic of the document. To this end, we propose INSPECT—an approach that uses self-explaining models for identifying influential keyphrases in a document by measuring the predictive impact of input phrases on the downstream task of the document topic classification. We show that this novel method not only alleviates the need for ad-hoc heuristics but also achieves state-of-the-art results in unsupervised keyphrase extraction in four datasets across two domains: scientific publications and news articles.

Foundation models pre-trained on large corpora demonstrate significant gains across many natural language processing tasks and domains e.g., law, healthcare, education, etc. However, only limited efforts have investigated the opportunities and limitations of applying these powerful models to science and security applications. In this work, we develop foundation models of scientific knowledge for chemistry to augment scientists with the advanced ability to perceive and reason at scale previously unimagined. Specifically, we build large-scale (1.47B parameter) general-purpose models for chemistry that can be effectively used to perform a wide range of in-domain and out-of-domain tasks. Evaluating these models in a zero-shot setting, we analyze the effect of model and data scaling, knowledge depth, and temporality on model performance in context of model training efficiency. Our novel findings demonstrate that (1) model size significantly contributes to the task performance when evaluated in a zero-shot setting; (2) data quality (aka diversity) affects model performance more than data quantity; (3) similarly, unlike previous work, temporal order of the documents in the corpus boosts model performance only for specific tasks, e.g., SciQ; and (4) models pre-trained from scratch perform better on in-domain tasks than those tuned from general-purpose models like Open AI’s GPT-2.

Traditional synonym recommendations often include ill-suited suggestions for writer’s specific contexts. We propose a simple approach for contextual synonym recommendation by combining existing human-curated thesauri, e.g. WordNet, with pre-trained language models. We evaluate our technique by curating a set of word-sentence pairs balanced across corpora and parts of speech, then annotating each word-sentence pair with the contextually appropriate set of synonyms. We found that basic language model approaches have higher precision. Approaches leveraging sentence context have higher recall. Overall, the latter contextual approach had the highest F-score.

Deceptive news posts shared in online communities can be detected with NLP models, and much recent research has focused on the development of such models. In this work, we use characteristics of online communities and authors — the context of how and where content is posted — to explain the performance of a neural network deception detection model and identify sub-populations who are disproportionately affected by model accuracy or failure. We examine who is posting the content, and where the content is posted to. We find that while author characteristics are better predictors of deceptive content than community characteristics, both characteristics are strongly correlated with model performance. Traditional performance metrics such as F1 score may fail to capture poor model performance on isolated sub-populations such as specific authors, and as such, more nuanced evaluation of deception detection models is critical.

Drawing causal conclusions from observational real-world data is a very much desired but a challenging task. In this paper we present mixed-method analyses to investigate causal influences of publication trends and behavior on the adoption, persistence and retirement of certain research foci – methodologies, materials, and tasks that are of interest to the computational linguistics (CL) community. Our key findings highlight evidence of the transition to rapidly emerging methodologies in the research community (e.g., adoption of bidirectional LSTMs influencing the retirement of LSTMs), the persistent engagement with trending tasks and techniques (e.g., deep learning, embeddings, generative, and language models), the effect of scientist location from outside the US e.g., China on propensity of researching languages beyond English, and the potential impact of funding for large-scale research programs. We anticipate this work to provide useful insights about publication trends and behavior and raise the awareness about the potential for causal inference in the computational linguistics and a broader scientific community.

With the increasing use of machine-learning driven algorithmic judgements, it is critical to develop models that are robust to evolving or manipulated inputs. We propose an extensive analysis of model robustness against linguistic variation in the setting of deceptive news detection, an important task in the context of misinformation spread online. We consider two prediction tasks and compare three state-of-the-art embeddings to highlight consistent trends in model performance, high confidence misclassifications, and high impact failures. By measuring the effectiveness of adversarial defense strategies and evaluating model susceptibility to adversarial attacks using character- and word-perturbed text, we find that character or mixed ensemble models are the most effective defenses and that character perturbation-based attack tactics are more successful.

Evaluation beyond aggregate performance metrics, e.g. F1-score, is crucial to both establish an appropriate level of trust in machine learning models and identify avenues for future model improvements. In this paper we demonstrate CrossCheck, an interactive capability for rapid cross-model comparison and reproducible error analysis. We describe the tool, discuss design and implementation details, and present three NLP use cases – named entity recognition, reading comprehension, and clickbait detection that show the benefits of using the tool for model evaluation. CrossCheck enables users to make informed decisions when choosing between multiple models, identify when the models are correct and for which examples, investigate whether the models are making the same mistakes as humans, evaluate models’ generalizability and highlight models’ limitations, strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, CrossCheck is implemented as a Jupyter widget, which allows for rapid and convenient integration into existing model development workflows.

Evaluating model robustness is critical when developing trustworthy models not only to gain deeper understanding of model behavior, strengths, and weaknesses, but also to develop future models that are generalizable and robust across expected environments a model may encounter in deployment. In this paper, we present a framework for measuring model robustness for an important but difficult text classification task – deceptive news detection. We evaluate model robustness to out-of-domain data, modality-specific features, and languages other than English. Our investigation focuses on three type of models: LSTM models trained on multiple datasets (Cross-Domain), several fusion LSTM models trained with images and text and evaluated with three state-of-the-art embeddings, BERT ELMo, and GloVe (Cross-Modality), and character-level CNN models trained on multiple languages (Cross-Language). Our analyses reveal a significant drop in performance when testing neural models on out-of-domain data and non-English languages that may be mitigated using diverse training data. We find that with additional image content as input, ELMo embeddings yield significantly fewer errors compared to BERT or GLoVe. Most importantly, this work not only carefully analyzes deception model robustness but also provides a framework of these analyses that can be applied to new models or extended datasets in the future.

In the age of social news, it is important to understand the types of reactions that are evoked from news sources with various levels of credibility. In the present work we seek to better understand how users react to trusted and deceptive news sources across two popular, and very different, social media platforms. To that end, (1) we develop a model to classify user reactions into one of nine types, such as answer, elaboration, and question, etc, and (2) we measure the speed and the type of reaction for trusted and deceptive news sources for 10.8M Twitter posts and 6.2M Reddit comments. We show that there are significant differences in the speed and the type of reactions between trusted and deceptive news sources on Twitter, but far smaller differences on Reddit.