skip to main content
10.1145/3511808.3557426acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Rationale Aware Contrastive Learning Based Approach to Classify and Summarize Crisis-Related Microblogs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent fashion of information propagation on Twitter makes the platform a crucial conduit for tactical data and emergency responses during disasters. However, the real-time information about crises is immersed in a large volume of emotional and irrelevant posts. It brings the necessity to develop an automatic tool to identify disaster-related messages and summarize the information for data consumption and situation planning. Besides, explainability of the methods is crucial in determining their applicability in real-life scenarios. Recent studies also highlight the importance of learning a good latent representation of tweets for several downstream tasks. In this paper, we take advantage of state-of-the-art methods, such as transformers and contrastive learning to build an interpretable classifier. Our proposed model classifies Twitter messages into different humanitarian categories and also extracts rationale snippets as supporting evidence for output decisions. The contrastive learning framework helps to learn better representations of tweets by bringing the related tweets closer in the embedding space. Furthermore, we employ classification labels and rationales to efficiently generate summaries of crisis events. Extensive experiments over different crisis datasets show that (i). our classifier obtains the best performance-interpretability trade-off, (ii). the proposed summarizer shows superior performance (1.4%-22% improvement) with significantly less computation cost than baseline models.

References

  1. Firoj Alam, Shafiq R. Joty, and Muhammad Imran. 2018. Graph Based Semi-Supervised Learning with Convolution Neural Networks to Classify Crisis Related Tweets. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2018, Stanford, California, USA, June 25-28, 2018. 556--559.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2015. Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mark A. Cameron, Robert Power, Bella Robinson, and Jie Yin. 2012. Emergency situation awareness from twitter for crisis management. In Proceedings of the 21st World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2012, Lyon, France, April 16-20, 2012 (Companion Volume). 695--698.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cornelia Caragea, Adrian Silvescu, and Andrea H. Tapia. 2016. Identifying Informative Messages in Disasters using Convolutional Neural Networks. In 13th Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, May 22-25, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. N. Chawla, K. Bowyer, L. Hall, and P. Kegelmeyer. 2002. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of artificial intelligence research, Vol. 16 (2002), 321--357.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). 4171--4186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jay DeYoung, Sarthak Jain, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Eric Lehman, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Byron C. Wallace. 2020. ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020. 4443--4458.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Milton Friedman. 1940. A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (1940).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Tianyu Gao, Xingcheng Yao, and Danqi Chen. 2021. SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. gurobi. 2015. Gurobi -- The overall fastest and best supported solver available. http://www.gurobi.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Muhammad Imran, Carlos Castillo, Fernando Diaz, and Sarah Vieweg. 2015. Processing Social Media Messages in Mass Emergency: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv., Vol. 47, 4, 67:1--67:38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Muhammad Imran, Carlos Castillo, Ji Lucas, Patrick Meier, and Sarah Vieweg. [n.d.]. AIDR: artificial intelligence for disaster response. In 23rd International World Wide Web Conference, WWW '14, Seoul, Republic of Korea, April 7-11, 2014, Companion Volume. 159--162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Muhammad Imran, Prasenjit Mitra, and Carlos Castillo. 2016. Twitter as a Lifeline: Human-annotated Twitter Corpora for NLP of Crisis-related Messages. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation LREC 2016, Portorovz, Slovenia, May 23-28, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. 2019. Attention is not Explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). 3543--3556.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Chris Kedzie, Fernando Diaz, and Kathleen R. McKeown. 2016. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9-15 July 2016. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 3754--3760.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Chris Kedzie, Kathleen R. McKeown, and Fernando Diaz. 2015. Predicting Salient Updates for Disaster Summarization. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers. 1608--1617.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jens Kersten, Anna M. Kruspe, Matti Wiegmann, and Friederike Klan. [n.d.]. Robust filtering of crisis-related tweets. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, València, Spain, May 19--22, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised Contrastive Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 18661--18673.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Hongmin Li, Doina Caragea, and Cornelia Caragea. 2021a. Combining Self-training with Deep Learning for Disaster Tweet Classification. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Quanzhi Li and Qiong Zhang. 2020. Abstractive Event Summarization on Twitter. In Companion of The 2020 Web Conference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20-24, 2020. 22--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Yunfan Li, Peng Hu, Zitao Liu, Dezhong Peng, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Xi Peng. 2021b. Contrastive Clustering. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Yixin Liu, Zi-Yi Dou, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. RefSum: Refactoring Neural Summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1437--1448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Yang Liu and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Text Summarization with Pretrained Encoders. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, Hong Kong, China, November 3-7, 2019. 3728--3738.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Richard McCreadie, Cody Buntain, and Ian Soboroff. 2019. TREC Incident Streams: Finding Actionable Information on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, València, Spain, May 19-22, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramesh Nallapati, Feifei Zhai, and Bowen Zhou. 2017. SummaRuNNer: A Recurrent Neural Network Based Sequence Model for Extractive Summarization of Documents. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, February 4-9, 2017, San Francisco, California, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Dat Quoc Nguyen, Thanh Vu, and Anh Tuan Nguyen. 2020. BERTweet: A pre-trained language model for English Tweets. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Dat Tien Nguyen, Kamla Al-Mannai, Shafiq R. Joty, Hassan Sajjad, Muhammad Imran, and Prasenjit Mitra. 2017. Robust Classification of Crisis-Related Data on Social Networks Using Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2017, Montréal, Québec, Canada, May 15-18, 2017. 632--635.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Minh-Tien Nguyen, Asanobu Kitamoto, and Tri-Thanh Nguyen. 2015. TSum4act: A Framework for Retrieving and Summarizing Actionable Tweets During a Disaster for Reaction. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining - 19th Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2015, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, May 19-22, 2015, Proceedings, Part II, Vol. 9078. 64--75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Thi-Huyen Nguyen, Tuan-Anh Hoang, and Wolfgang Nejdl. 2019. Efficient Summarizing of Evolving Events from Twitter Streams. In Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, SDM 2019, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 2-4, 2019. 226--234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Thi Huyen Nguyen and Koustav Rudra. 2022. Towards an Interpretable Approach to Classify and Summarize Crisis Events from Microblogs. In WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, France, April 25 - 29, 2022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Andrei Olariu. 2014. Efficient Online Summarization of Microblogging Streams. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2014, April 26-30, 2014, Gothenburg, Sweden. 236--240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Pouya Pezeshkpour, Sarthak Jain, Sameer Singh, and Byron C. Wallace. 2022. Combining Feature and Instance Attribution to Detect Artifacts. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22--27, 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1934--1946. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.153Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Shalini Priya, Apoorva Upadhyaya, Manish Bhanu, Sourav Kumar Dandapat, and Joydeep Chandra. 2020. EnDeA: Ensemble based Decoupled Adversarial Learning for Identifying Infrastructure Damage during Disasters. In CIKM '20: The 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Virtual Event, Ireland, October 19-23, 2020. ACM, 1245--1254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Marco Tú lio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations Session, NAACL HLT 2016, The 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, San Diego California, USA, June 12-17, 2016.97--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Andrew Slavin Ross, Michael C. Hughes, and Finale Doshi-Velez. 2017. Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17. 2662--2670.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Cynthia Rudin. 2019. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. In Nature Machine Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Koustav Rudra, Subham Ghosh, Niloy Ganguly, Pawan Goyal, and Saptarshi Ghosh. 2015. Extracting Situational Information from Microblogs during Disaster Events: a Classification-Summarization Approach. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, October 19 - 23, 2015. 583--592.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Koustav Rudra, Pawan Goyal, Niloy Ganguly, Muhammad Imran, and Prasenjit Mitra. 2019. Summarizing Situational Tweets in Crisis Scenarios: An Extractive-Abstractive Approach. In IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Koustav Rudra, Pawan Goyal, Niloy Ganguly, Prasenjit Mitra, and Muhammad Imran. 2018. Identifying Sub-events and Summarizing Disaster-Related Information from Microblogs. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2018, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, July 08-12, 2018. 265--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Naveen Saini, Sriparna Saha, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2019. Multiobjective-Based Approach for Microblog Summarization. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems (2019).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Sofia Serrano and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Is Attention Interpretable?. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers. 2931--2951.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Dylan Slack, Anna Hilgard, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Sameer Singh. 2021a. Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated. (2021), 62--75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Dylan Slack, Anna Hilgard, Sameer Singh, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2021b. Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainability. (2021), 9391--9404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Kihyuk Sohn. 2016. Improved Deep Metric Learning with Multi-class N-pair Loss Objective. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2016, December 5-10, 2016, Barcelona, Spain. 1849--1857.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Sanjay Subramanian, William Merrill, Trevor Darrell, Matt Gardner, Sameer Singh, and Anna Rohrbach. 2022. ReCLIP: A Strong Zero-Shot Baseline for Referring Expression Comprehension. (2022), 5198--5215.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Varsha Suresh and Desmond C. Ong. 2021. Not All Negatives are Equal: Label-Aware Contrastive Loss for Fine-grained Text Classification. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. TREC. 2022. Crisis FACTS. https://crisisfacts.github.io/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Istvá n Varga, Motoki Sano, Kentaro Torisawa, Chikara Hashimoto, Kiyonori Ohtake, Takao Kawai, Jong-Hoon Oh, and Stijn De Saeger. 2013. Aid is Out There: Looking for Help from Tweets during a Large Scale Disaster. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2013, 4-9 August 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, Volume 1: Long Papers. 1619--1629.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Sudha Verma, Sarah Vieweg, William J. Corvey, Leysia Palen, James H. Martin, Martha Palmer, Aaron Schram, and Kenneth Mark Anderson. 2011. Natural Language Processing to the Rescue? Extracting "Situational Awareness" Tweets During Mass Emergency. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 17-21, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Eric Wallace, Tony Z. Zhao, Shi Feng, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Concealed Data Poisoning Attacks on NLP Models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics, 139--150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Zijian Zhang, Koustav Rudra, and Avishek Anand. 2021. Explain and Predict, and then Predict Again. In WSDM '21, The Fourteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Virtual Event, Israel, March 8-12, 2021. 418--426.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Hao Zheng and Mirella Lapata. 2019. Sentence Centrality Revisited for Unsupervised Summarization. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28-August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers. 6236--6247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Rationale Aware Contrastive Learning Based Approach to Classify and Summarize Crisis-Related Microblogs

      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
        CIKM '22: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management
        October 2022
        5274 pages
        ISBN:9781450392365
        DOI:10.1145/3511808
        • General Chairs:
        • Mohammad Al Hasan,
        • Li Xiong

        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: 17 October 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CIKM '22 Paper Acceptance Rate621of2,257submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader