BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Debanjan Ghosh

Debanjan Ghosh contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageMachine LearningArtificial Intelligenceeess.ASHuman-Computer InteractionSound

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
8works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

"What makes a question inquisitive?" A Study on Type-Controlled Inquisitive Question Generation

We propose a type-controlled framework for inquisitive question generation. We annotate an inquisitive question dataset with question types, train question type classifiers, and finetune models for type-controlled question generation. Empirical results demonstrate that we can generate a variety of questions that adhere to specific types while drawing from the source texts. We also investigate strategies for selecting a single question from a generated set, considering both an informative vs.~inquisitive question classifier and a pairwise ranker trained from a small set of expert annotations. Question selection using the pairwise ranker yields strong results in automatic and manual evaluation. Our human evaluation assesses multiple aspects of the generated questions, finding that the ranker chooses questions with the best syntax (4.59), semantics (4.37), and inquisitiveness (3.92) on a scale of 1-5, even rivaling the performance of human-written questions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

"Laughing at you or with you": The Role of Sarcasm in Shaping the Disagreement Space

Detecting arguments in online interactions is useful to understand how conflicts arise and get resolved. Users often use figurative language, such as sarcasm, either as persuasive devices or to attack the opponent by an ad hominem argument. To further our understanding of the role of sarcasm in shaping the disagreement space, we present a thorough experimental setup using a corpus annotated with both argumentative moves (agree/disagree) and sarcasm. We exploit joint modeling in terms of (a) applying discrete features that are useful in detecting sarcasm to the task of argumentative relation classification (agree/disagree/none), and (b) multitask learning for argumentative relation classification and sarcasm detection using deep learning architectures (e.g., dual Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) with hierarchical attention and Transformer-based architectures). We demonstrate that modeling sarcasm improves the argumentative relation classification task (agree/disagree/none) in all setups.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

"Sharks are not the threat humans are": Argument Component Segmentation in School Student Essays

Argument mining is often addressed by a pipeline method where segmentation of text into argumentative units is conducted first and proceeded by an argument component identification task. In this research, we apply a token-level classification to identify claim and premise tokens from a new corpus of argumentative essays written by middle school students. To this end, we compare a variety of state-of-the-art models such as discrete features and deep learning architectures (e.g., BiLSTM networks and BERT-based architectures) to identify the argument components. We demonstrate that a BERT-based multi-task learning architecture (i.e., token and sentence level classification) adaptively pretrained on a relevant unlabeled dataset obtains the best results

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

$R^3$: Reverse, Retrieve, and Rank for Sarcasm Generation with Commonsense Knowledge

We propose an unsupervised approach for sarcasm generation based on a non-sarcastic input sentence. Our method employs a retrieve-and-edit framework to instantiate two major characteristics of sarcasm: reversal of valence and semantic incongruity with the context which could include shared commonsense or world knowledge between the speaker and the listener. While prior works on sarcasm generation predominantly focus on context incongruity, we show that combining valence reversal and semantic incongruity based on the commonsense knowledge generates sarcasm of higher quality. Human evaluation shows that our system generates sarcasm better than human annotators 34% of the time, and better than a reinforced hybrid baseline 90% of the time.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Report on the 2020 Sarcasm Detection Shared Task

Detecting sarcasm and verbal irony is critical for understanding people's actual sentiments and beliefs. Thus, the field of sarcasm analysis has become a popular research problem in natural language processing. As the community working on computational approaches for sarcasm detection is growing, it is imperative to conduct benchmarking studies to analyze the current state-of-the-art, facilitating progress in this area. We report on the shared task on sarcasm detection we conducted as a part of the 2nd Workshop on Figurative Language Processing (FigLang 2020) at ACL 2020.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An Exploratory Study of Argumentative Writing by Young Students: A Transformer-based Approach

We present a computational exploration of argument critique writing by young students. Middle school students were asked to criticize an argument presented in the prompt, focusing on identifying and explaining the reasoning flaws. This task resembles an established college-level argument critique task. Lexical and discourse features that utilize detailed domain knowledge to identify critiques exist for the college task but do not perform well on the young students data. Instead, transformer-based architecture (e.g., BERT) fine-tuned on a large corpus of critique essays from the college task performs much better (over 20% improvement in F1 score). Analysis of the performance of various configurations of the system suggests that while children's writing does not exhibit the standard discourse structure of an argumentative essay, it does share basic local sequential structures with the more mature writers.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Exploring Recurrent, Memory and Attention Based Architectures for Scoring Interactional Aspects of Human-Machine Text Dialog

An important step towards enabling English language learners to improve their conversational speaking proficiency involves automated scoring of multiple aspects of interactional competence and subsequent targeted feedback. This paper builds on previous work in this direction to investigate multiple neural architectures -- recurrent, attention and memory based -- along with feature-engineered models for the automated scoring of interactional and topic development aspects of text dialog data. We conducted experiments on a conversational database of text dialogs from human learners interacting with a cloud-based dialog system, which were triple-scored along multiple dimensions of conversational proficiency. We find that fusion of multiple architectures performs competently on our automated scoring task relative to expert inter-rater agreements, with (i) hand-engineered features passed to a support vector learner and (ii) transformer-based architectures contributing most prominently to the fusion.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Interpreting Verbal Irony: Linguistic Strategies and the Connection to the Type of Semantic Incongruity

Human communication often involves the use of verbal irony or sarcasm, where the speakers usually mean the opposite of what they say. To better understand how verbal irony is expressed by the speaker and interpreted by the hearer we conduct a crowdsourcing task: given an utterance expressing verbal irony, users are asked to verbalize their interpretation of the speaker's ironic message. We propose a typology of linguistic strategies for verbal irony interpretation and link it to various theoretical linguistic frameworks. We design computational models to capture these strategies and present empirical studies aimed to answer three questions: (1) what is the distribution of linguistic strategies used by hearers to interpret ironic messages?; (2) do hearers adopt similar strategies for interpreting the speaker's ironic intent?; and (3) does the type of semantic incongruity in the ironic message (explicit vs. implicit) influence the choice of interpretation strategies by the hearers?

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access