POQue: Asking Participant-specific Outcome Questions for a Deeper Understanding of Complex Events

Sai Vallurupalli, Sayontan Ghosh, K. Erk, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Francis Ferraro
{"title":"POQue: Asking Participant-specific Outcome Questions for a Deeper Understanding of Complex Events","authors":"Sai Vallurupalli, Sayontan Ghosh, K. Erk, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Francis Ferraro","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2212.02629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Knowledge about outcomes is critical for complex event understanding but is hard to acquire.We show that by pre-identifying a participant in a complex event, crowdworkers are ableto (1) infer the collective impact of salient events that make up the situation, (2) annotate the volitional engagement of participants in causing the situation, and (3) ground theoutcome of the situation in state changes of the participants. By creating a multi-step interface and a careful quality control strategy, we collect a high quality annotated dataset of8K short newswire narratives and ROCStories with high inter-annotator agreement (0.74-0.96weighted Fleiss Kappa). Our dataset, POQUe (Participant Outcome Questions), enables theexploration and development of models that address multiple aspects of semantic understanding. Experimentally, we show that current language models lag behind human performance in subtle ways through our task formulations that target abstract and specific comprehension of a complex event, its outcome, and a participant’s influence over the event culmination.","PeriodicalId":74540,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing","volume":"16 1","pages":"8674-8697"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.02629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Knowledge about outcomes is critical for complex event understanding but is hard to acquire.We show that by pre-identifying a participant in a complex event, crowdworkers are ableto (1) infer the collective impact of salient events that make up the situation, (2) annotate the volitional engagement of participants in causing the situation, and (3) ground theoutcome of the situation in state changes of the participants. By creating a multi-step interface and a careful quality control strategy, we collect a high quality annotated dataset of8K short newswire narratives and ROCStories with high inter-annotator agreement (0.74-0.96weighted Fleiss Kappa). Our dataset, POQUe (Participant Outcome Questions), enables theexploration and development of models that address multiple aspects of semantic understanding. Experimentally, we show that current language models lag behind human performance in subtle ways through our task formulations that target abstract and specific comprehension of a complex event, its outcome, and a participant’s influence over the event culmination.
POQue:询问参与者特定的结果问题,以更深入地理解复杂事件
关于结果的知识对于理解复杂事件至关重要,但很难获得。我们表明,通过预先识别复杂事件中的参与者,众包工作者能够(1)推断构成该情况的显著事件的集体影响,(2)注释导致该情况的参与者的自愿参与,以及(3)根据参与者的状态变化来确定情况的结果。通过创建多步骤界面和仔细的质量控制策略,我们收集了一个高质量的注释数据集,包含8k短新闻报道和具有高注释者间一致性(0.74-0.96加权Fleiss Kappa)的ROCStories。我们的数据集POQUe(参与者结果问题)能够探索和开发解决语义理解多个方面的模型。通过实验,我们发现当前的语言模型以微妙的方式落后于人类的表现,通过我们的任务公式,目标是对复杂事件的抽象和具体理解,其结果,以及参与者对事件高潮的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信