Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userToxicity Detection: Does Context Really Matter?
83
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
John Pavlopoulos
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Moderation is crucial to promoting healthy on-line discussions. Although several `toxicity detection datasets and models have been published, most of them ignore the context of the posts, implicitly assuming that comments maybe judged independently. We investigate this assumption by focusing on two questions: (a) does context affect the human judgement, and (b) does conditioning on context improve performance of toxicity detection systems? We experiment with Wikipedia conversations, limiting the notion of context to the previous post in the thread and the discussion title. We find that context can both amplify or mitigate the perceived toxicity of posts. Moreover, a small but significant subset of manually labeled posts (5% in one of our experiments) end up having the opposite toxicity labels if the annotators are not provided with context. Surprisingly, we also find no evidence that context actually improves the performance of toxicity classifiers, having tried a range of classifiers and mechanisms to make them context aware. This points to the need for larger datasets of comments annotated in context. We make our code and data publicly available.
rate research
Read More
Knowledge distillation is a popular technique for training a small student network to emulate a larger teacher model, such as an ensemble of networks. We show that while knowledge distillation can improve student generalization, it does not typically work as it is commonly understood: there often remains a surprisingly large discrepancy between the predictive distributions of the teacher and the student, even in cases when the student has the capacity to perfectly match the teacher. We identify difficulties in optimization as a key reason for why the student is unable to match the teacher. We also show how the details of the dataset used for distillation play a role in how closely the student matches the teacher -- and that more closely matching the teacher paradoxically does not always lead to better student generalization.
The jackknife method gives an internal covariance estimate for large-scale structure surveys and allows model-independent errors on cosmological parameters. Using the SDSS-III BOSS CMASS sample, we study how the jackknife size and number of resamplings impact the precision of the covariance estimate on the correlation function multipoles and the error on the inferred baryon acoustic scale. We compare the measurement with the MultiDark Patchy mock galaxy catalogues, and we also validate it against a set of log-normal mocks with the same survey geometry. We build several jackknife configurations that vary in size and number of resamplings. We introduce the Hartlap factor in the covariance estimate that depends on the number of jackknife resamplings. We also find that it is useful to apply the tapering scheme to estimate the precision matrix from a limited number of resamplings. The results from CMASS and mock catalogues show that the error estimate of the baryon acoustic scale does not depend on the jackknife scale. For the shift parameter $alpha$, we find an average error of 1.6%, 2.2% and 1.2%, respectively from CMASS, Patchy and log-normal jackknife covariances. Despite these uncertainties fluctuate significantly due to some structural limitations of the jackknife method, our $alpha$ estimates are in reasonable agreement with published pre-reconstruction analyses. Jackknife methods will provide valuable and complementary covariance estimates for future large-scale structure surveys.
The development of neural networks and pretraining techniques has spawned many sentence-level tagging systems that achieved superior performance on typical benchmarks. However, a relatively less discussed topic is what if more context information is introduced into current top-scoring tagging systems. Although several existing works have attempted to shift tagging systems from sentence-level to document-level, there is still no consensus conclusion about when and why it works, which limits the applicability of the larger-context approach in tagging tasks. In this paper, instead of pursuing a state-of-the-art tagging system by architectural exploration, we focus on investigating when and why the larger-context training, as a general strategy, can work. To this end, we conduct a thorough comparative study on four proposed aggregators for context information collecting and present an attribute-aided evaluation method to interpret the improvement brought by larger-context training. Experimentally, we set up a testbed based on four tagging tasks and thirteen datasets. Hopefully, our preliminary observations can deepen the understanding of larger-context training and enlighten more follow-up works on the use of contextual information.
Although proper handling of discourse phenomena significantly contributes to the quality of machine translation (MT), common translation quality metrics do not adequately capture them. Recent works in context-aware MT attempt to target a small set of these phenomena during evaluation. In this paper, we propose a new metric, P-CXMI, which allows us to identify translations that require context systematically and confirm the difficulty of previously studied phenomena as well as uncover new ones that have not been addressed in previous work. We then develop the Multilingual Discourse-Aware (MuDA) benchmark, a series of taggers for these phenomena in 14 different language pairs, which we use to evaluate context-aware MT. We find that state-of-the-art context-aware MT models find marginal improvements over context-agnostic models on our benchmark, which suggests current models do not handle these ambiguities effectively. We release code and data to invite the MT research community to increase efforts on context-aware translation on discourse phenomena and languages that are currently overlooked.
Traditional toxicity detection models have focused on the single utterance level without deeper understanding of context. We introduce CONDA, a new dataset for in-game toxic language detection enabling joint intent classification and slot filling analysis, which is the core task of Natural Language Understanding (NLU). The dataset consists of 45K utterances from 12K conversations from the chat logs of 1.9K completed Dota 2 matches. We propose a robust dual semantic-level toxicity framework, which handles utterance and token-level patterns, and rich contextual chatting history. Accompanying the dataset is a thorough in-game toxicity analysis, which provides comprehensive understanding of context at utterance, token, and dual levels. Inspired by NLU, we also apply its metrics to the toxicity detection tasks for assessing toxicity and game-specific aspects. We evaluate strong NLU models on CONDA, providing fine-grained results for different intent classes and slot classes. Furthermore, we examine the coverage of toxicity nature in our dataset by comparing it with other toxicity datasets.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
