Abusive language detection has become an important tool for the cultivation of safe online platforms. We investigate the interaction of annotation quality and classifier performance. We use a new, fine-grained annotation scheme that allows us to dist
inguish between abusive language and colloquial uses of profanity that are not meant to harm. Our results show a tendency of crowd workers to overuse the abusive class, which creates an unrealistic class balance and affects classification accuracy. We also investigate different methods of distinguishing between explicit and implicit abuse and show lexicon-based approaches either over- or under-estimate the proportion of explicit abuse in data sets.
We present GeSERA, an open-source improved version of SERA for evaluating automatic extractive and abstractive summaries from the general domain. SERA is based on a search engine that compares candidate and reference summaries (called queries) agains
t an information retrieval document base (called index). SERA was originally designed for the biomedical domain only, where it showed a better correlation with manual methods than the widely used lexical-based ROUGE method. In this paper, we take out SERA from the biomedical domain to the general one by adapting its content-based method to successfully evaluate summaries from the general domain. First, we improve the query reformulation strategy with POS Tags analysis of general-domain corpora. Second, we replace the biomedical index used in SERA with two article collections from AQUAINT-2 and Wikipedia. We conduct experiments with TAC2008, TAC2009, and CNNDM datasets. Results show that, in most cases, GeSERA achieves higher correlations with manual evaluation methods than SERA, while it reduces its gap with ROUGE for general-domain summary evaluation. GeSERA even surpasses ROUGE in two cases of TAC2009. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments and provide a comprehensive study of the impact of human annotators and the index size on summary evaluation with SERA and GeSERA.
