Climate change has increased the intensity, frequency, and duration of extreme weather events and natural disasters across the world. While the increased data on natural disasters improves the scope of machine learning (ML) in this field, progress is relatively slow. One bottleneck is the lack of benchmark datasets that would allow ML researchers to quantify their progress against a standard metric. The objective of this short paper is to explore the state of benchmark datasets for ML tasks related to natural disasters, categorizing them according to the disaster management cycle. We compile a list of existing benchmark datasets introduced in the past five years. We propose a web platform - NADBenchmarks - where researchers can search for benchmark datasets for natural disasters, and we develop a preliminary version of such a platform using our compiled list. This paper is intended to aid researchers in finding benchmark datasets to train their ML models on, and provide general directions for topics where they can contribute new benchmark datasets.

How do we design measures of social bias that we trust? While prior work has introduced several measures, no measure has gained widespread trust: instead, mounting evidence argues we should distrust these measures. In this work, we design bias measures that warrant trust based on the cross-disciplinary theory of measurement modeling. To combat the frequently fuzzy treatment of social bias in NLP, we explicitly define social bias, grounded in principles drawn from social science research. We operationalize our definition by proposing a general bias measurement framework DivDist, which we use to instantiate 5 concrete bias measures. To validate our measures, we propose a rigorous testing protocol with 8 testing criteria (e.g. predictive validity: do measures predict biases in US employment?). Through our testing, we demonstrate considerable evidence to trust our measures, showing they overcome conceptual, technical, and empirical deficiencies present in prior measures.

Data Augmentation (DA) is frequently used to automatically provide additional training data without extra human annotation. However, data augmentation may introduce noisy data that impairs training. To guarantee the quality of augmented data, existing methods either assume no noise exists in the augmented data and adopt consistency training or use simple heuristics such as training loss and diversity constraints to filter out ``noisy'' data. However, those filtered examples may still contain useful information, and dropping them completely causes loss of supervision signals. In this paper, based on the assumption that the original dataset is cleaner than the augmented data, we propose an on-the-fly denoising technique for data augmentation that learns from soft augmented labels provided by an organic teacher model trained on the cleaner original data. A simple self-regularization module is applied to force the model prediction to be consistent across two distinct dropouts to further prevent overfitting on noisy labels. Our method can be applied to augmentation techniques in general and can consistently improve the performance on both text classification and question-answering tasks.

When working with the dataset, we noticed an imbalance across the classes, in the train-We apply the vision transformer, a deep machine learning model (Figure 1a) as well as in the provided devel-dataset. The counts build around the attention mechanism, on mel-spectrogram per sample and class are similar in train & devel (c.p. Figure 1a), representations of raw audio recordings. When adding melbased but we noticed slight variations in audio-sample length (number data augmentation techniques and sample-weighting, we of frames, c.p. Figure 1b & 1c). Distributions for train and devel achieve comparable performance on both (PRS and CCS challenge) are comparable while the test dataset has variations in sample tasks of ComParE21, outperforming most single model length regarding the number of very small (<= 0.3 seconds).

Opinion mining is the branch of computation that deals with opinions, appraisals, attitudes, and emotions of people and their different aspects. This field has attracted substantial research interest in recent years. Aspect-level (called aspect-based opinion mining) is often desired in practical applications as it provides detailed opinions or sentiments about different aspects of entities and entities themselves, which are usually required for action. Aspect extraction and entity extraction are thus two core tasks of aspect-based opinion mining. his paper has presented a framework of aspect-based opinion mining based on the concept of transfer learning. on real-world customer reviews available on the Amazon website. The model has yielded quite satisfactory results in its task of aspect-based opinion mining.

Evaluation is the central means for assessing, understanding, and communicating about NLP models. In this position paper, we argue evaluation should be more than that: it is a force for driving change, carrying a sociological and political character beyond its technical dimensions. As a force, evaluation's power arises from its adoption: under our view, evaluation succeeds when it achieves the desired change in the field. Further, by framing evaluation as a force, we consider how it competes with other forces. Under our analysis, we conjecture that the current trajectory of NLP suggests evaluation's power is waning, in spite of its potential for realizing more pluralistic ambitions in the field. We conclude by discussing the legitimacy of this power, who acquires this power and how it distributes. Ultimately, we hope the research community will more aggressively harness evaluation for change.

Many dialogue systems (DSs) lack characteristics humans have, such as emotion perception, factuality, and informativeness. Enhancing DSs with knowledge alleviates this problem, but, as many ways of doing so exist, keeping track of all proposed methods is difficult. Here, we present the first survey of knowledge-enhanced DSs. We define three categories of systems - internal, external, and hybrid - based on the knowledge they use. We survey the motivation for enhancing DSs with knowledge, used datasets, and methods for knowledge search, knowledge encoding, and knowledge incorporation. Finally, we propose how to improve existing systems based on theories from linguistics and cognitive science.

Bargaining can be used to resolve mixed-motive games in multi-agent systems. Although there is an abundance of negotiation strategies implemented in automated negotiating agents, most agents are based on single fixed strategies, while it is widely acknowledged that there is no single best-performing strategy for all negotiation settings. In this paper, we focus on bargaining settings where opponents are repeatedly encountered, but the bargaining problems change. We introduce a novel method that automatically creates and deploys a portfolio of complementary negotiation strategies using a training set and optimise pay-off in never-before-seen bargaining settings through per-setting strategy selection. Our method relies on the following contributions. We introduce a feature representation that captures characteristics for both the opponent and the bargaining problem. We model the behaviour of an opponent during a negotiation based on its actions, which is indicative of its negotiation strategy, in order to be more effective in future encounters. Our combination of feature-based methods generalises to new negotiation settings, as in practice, over time, it selects effective counter strategies in future encounters. Our approach is tested in an ANAC-like tournament, and we show that we are capable of winning such a tournament with a 5.6% increase in pay-off compared to the runner-up agent.

Humans are sophisticated at reading interlocutors' emotions from multimodal signals, such as speech contents, voice tones and facial expressions. However, machines might struggle to understand various emotions due to the difficulty of effectively decoding emotions from the complex interactions between multimodal signals. In this paper, we propose a multimodal emotion analysis framework, InterMulti, to capture complex multimodal interactions from different views and identify emotions from multimodal signals. Our proposed framework decomposes signals of different modalities into three kinds of multimodal interaction representations, including a modality-full interaction representation, a modality-shared interaction representation, and three modality-specific interaction representations. Additionally, to balance the contribution of different modalities and learn a more informative latent interaction representation, we developed a novel Text-dominated Hierarchical High-order Fusion(THHF) module. THHF module reasonably integrates the above three kinds of representations into a comprehensive multimodal interaction representation. Extensive experimental results on widely used datasets, (i.e.) MOSEI, MOSI and IEMOCAP, demonstrate that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art.

In sociological research, the study of macro processes, such as opinion polarization, faces a fundamental problem, the so-called micro-macro problem. To overcome this problem, we combine empirical experimental research on biased argument processing with a computational theory of group deliberation in order to clarify the role of biased processing in debates around energy. The experiment reveals a strong tendency to consider arguments aligned with the current attitude more persuasive and to downgrade those speaking against it. This is integrated into the framework of argument communication theory in which agents exchange arguments about a certain topic and adapt opinions accordingly. We derive a mathematical model that allows to relate the strength of biased processing to expected attitude changes given the specific experimental conditions and find a clear signature of moderate biased processing. We further show that this model fits significantly better to the experimentally observed attitude changes than the neutral argument processing assumption made in previous models. Our approach provides new insight into the relationship between biased processing and opinion polarization. At the individual level our analysis reveals a sharp qualitative transition from attitude moderation to polarization. At the collective level we find (i.) that weak biased processing significantly accelerates group decision processes whereas (ii.) strong biased processing leads to a persistent conflictual state of subgroup polarization. While this shows that biased processing alone is sufficient for the emergence of polarization, we also demonstrate that homophily may lead to intra-group conflict at significantly lower rates of biased processing.