This paper reports on a writing style analysis of hyperpartisan (i.e., extremely onesided) news in connection to fake news. It presents a large corpus of 1,627 articles that were manually fact-checked by professional journalists from BuzzFeed. The articles originated from 9 well-known political publishers, 3 each from the mainstream, the hyperpartisan left-wing, and the hyperpartisan right-wing. In sum, the corpus contains 299 fake news, 97% of which originated from hyperpartisan publishers.We propose and demonstrate a new way of assessing style similarity between text categories via Unmasking-a meta-learning approach originally devised for authorship verification-, revealing that the style of left-wing and right-wing news have a lot more in common than any of the two have with the mainstream. Furthermore, we show that hyperpartisan news can be discriminated well by its style from the mainstream (F 1 = 0.78), as can be satire from both (F 1 = 0.81). Unsurprisingly, stylebased fake news detection does not live up to scratch (F 1 = 0.46). Nevertheless, the former results are important to implement pre-screening for fake news detectors.

Automatic short answer grading (ASAG) is the task of assessing short natural language responses to objective questions using computational methods. The active research in this field has increased enormously of late with over 80 papers fitting a definition of ASAG. However, the past efforts have generally been ad-hoc and non-comparable until recently, hence the need for a unified view of the whole field. The goal of this paper is to address this aim with a comprehensive review of ASAG research and systems according to history and components. Our historical analysis identifies 35 ASAG systems within 5 temporal themes that mark advancement in methodology or evaluation. In contrast, our component analysis reviews 6 common dimensions from preprocessing to effectiveness. A key conclusion is that an era of evaluation is the newest trend in ASAG research, which is paving the way for the consolidation of the field.

Research on computational argumentation faces the problem of how to automatically assess the quality of an argument or argumentation. While different quality dimensions have been approached in natural language processing, a common understanding of argumentation quality is still missing. This paper presents the first holistic work on computational argumentation quality in natural language. We comprehensively survey the diverse existing theories and approaches to assess logical, rhetorical, and dialectical quality dimensions, and we derive a systematic taxonomy from these. In addition, we provide a corpus with 320 arguments, annotated for all 15 dimensions in the taxonomy. Our results establish a common ground for research on computational argumentation quality assessment.

No abstract

Hyperpartisan news is news that takes an extreme left-wing or right-wing standpoint. If one is able to reliably compute this meta information, news articles may be automatically tagged, this way encouraging or discouraging readers to consume the text. It is an open question how successfully hyperpartisan news detection can be automated, and the goal of this SemEval task was to shed light on the state of the art. We developed new resources for this purpose, including a manually labeled dataset with 1,273 articles, and a second dataset with 754,000 articles, labeled via distant supervision. The interest of the research community in our task exceeded all our expectations: The datasets were downloaded about 1,000 times, 322 teams registered, of which 184 configured a virtual machine on our shared task cloud service TIRA, of which in turn 42 teams submitted a valid run. The best team achieved an accuracy of 0.822 on a balanced sample (yes : no hyperpartisan) drawn from the manually tagged corpus; an ensemble of the submitted systems increased the accuracy by 0.048.