skip to main content
10.1145/3477495.3531881acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Public Access

Topological Analysis of Contradictions in Text

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Automatically finding contradictions from text is a fundamental yet under-studied problem in natural language understanding and information retrieval. Recently, topology, a branch of mathematics concerned with the properties of geometric shapes, has been shown useful to understand semantics of text. This study presents a topological approach to enhancing deep learning models in detecting contradictions in text. In addition, in order to better understand contradictions, we propose a classification with six types of contradictions. Following that, the topologically enhanced models are evaluated with different contradictions types, as well as different text genres. Overall we have demonstrated the usefulness of topological features in finding contradictions, especially the more latent and more complex contradictions in text.

References

  1. Fakhri Abbas and Xi Niu. 2019. One size does not fit all: Modeling users' personal curiosity in recommender systems. ArXivorg (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gunnar Carlsson. 2009. Topology and data. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , Vol. 46, 2 (2009), 255--308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhenhua Ling, Si Wei, Hui Jiang, and Diana Inkpen. 2016. Enhanced LSTM for natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.06038 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Marie-Catherine De Marneffe, Anna N Rafferty, and Christopher D Manning. 2008. Finding contradictions in text. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT . 1039--1047.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Pratik Doshi and Wlodek Zadrozny. 2018. Movie genre detection using topological data analysis. In International Conference on Statistical Language and Speech Processing. Springer, 117--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Lorik Dumani, Patrick J Neumann, and Ralf Schenkel. 2020. A framework for argument retrieval. In European Conference on Information Retrieval . Springer, 431--445.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Herbert Edelsbrunner and John Harer. 2010. Computational topology: an introduction .American Mathematical Soc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Herbert Edelsbrunner, David Letscher, and Afra Zomorodian. 2000. Topological persistence and simplification. In Proceedings 41st annual symposium on foundations of computer science. IEEE, 454--463.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Shafie Gholizadeh, Armin Seyeditabari, and Wlodek Zadrozny. 2018. Topological signature of 19th century novelists: Persistent homology in text mining. Big Data and Cognitive Computing , Vol. 2, 4 (2018), 33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. He-Liang Huang, Xi-Lin Wang, Peter P Rohde, Yi-Han Luo, You-Wei Zhao, Chang Liu, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. 2018. Demonstration of topological data analysis on a quantum processor. Optica , Vol. 5, 2 (2018), 193--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Chuqin Li, Xi Niu, Ahmad Al-Doulat, and Noseong Park. 2018. A computational approach to finding contradictions in user opinionated text. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 351--356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Pek Y Lum, Gurjeet Singh, Alan Lehman, Tigran Ishkanov, Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson, Muthu Alagappan, John Carlsson, and Gunnar Carlsson. 2013. Extracting insights from the shape of complex data using topology. Scientific reports , Vol. 3, 1 (2013), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Xi Niu and Fakhri Abbas. 2019. Computational surprise, perceptual surprise, and personal background in text understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 343--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Xi Niu, Fakhri Abbas, Mary Lou Maher, and Kazjon Grace. 2018a. Surprise me if you can: Serendipity in health information. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Xi Niu, Wlodek Zadrozny, Kazjon Grace, and Weimao Ke. 2018b. Computational surprise in information retrieval. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval . 1427--1429.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Cássio MM Pereira and Rodrigo F de Mello. 2015. Persistent homology for time series and spatial data clustering. Expert Systems with Applications , Vol. 42, 15--16 (2015), 6026--6038.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ketki Savle, Wlodek Zadrozny, and Minwoo Lee. 2019. Topological data analysis for discourse semantics?. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics-Student Papers . 34--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Donald R Sheehy. 2013. Linear-size approximations to the Vietoris--Rips filtration. Discrete & Computational Geometry , Vol. 49, 4 (2013), 778--796.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Christian Stab, Johannes Daxenberger, Chris Stahlhut, Tristan Miller, Benjamin Schiller, Christopher Tauchmann, Steffen Eger, and Iryna Gurevych. 2018. Argumentext: Searching for arguments in heterogeneous sources. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: demonstrations. 21--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jianlin Su, Jiarun Cao, Weijie Liu, and Yangyiwen Ou. 2021. Whitening sentence representations for better semantics and faster retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15316 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Christopher Tralie, Nathaniel Saul, and Rann Bar-On. 2018. Ripser. py: A lean persistent homology library for python. Journal of Open Source Software , Vol. 3, 29 (2018), 925.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Henning Wachsmuth, Martin Potthast, Khalid Al Khatib, Yamen Ajjour, Jana Puschmann, Jiani Qu, Jonas Dorsch, Viorel Morari, Janek Bevendorff, and Benno Stein. 2017. Building an argument search engine for the web. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining. 49--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Henning Wachsmuth, Shahbaz Syed, and Benno Stein. 2018. Retrieval of the best counterargument without prior topic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 241--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel R Bowman. 2017. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.05426 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Xiaojin Zhu. 2013. Persistent Homology: An Introduction and a New Text Representation for Natural Language Processing.. In IJCAI. 1953--1959.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Topological Analysis of Contradictions in Text

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SIGIR '22: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
        July 2022
        3569 pages
        ISBN:9781450387323
        DOI:10.1145/3477495

        Copyright © 2022 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 July 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate792of3,983submissions,20%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)179
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)27

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader