The societal issue of digital hostility has previously attracted a lot of attention. The topic counts an ample body of literature, yet remains prominent and challenging as ever due to its subjective nature. We posit that a better understanding of thi
s problem will require the use of causal inference frameworks. This survey summarises the relevant research that revolves around estimations of causal effects related to online hate speech. Initially, we provide an argumentation as to why re-establishing the exploration of hate speech in causal terms is of the essence. Following that, we give an overview of the leading studies classified with respect to the direction of their outcomes, as well as an outline of all related research, and a summary of open research problems that can influence future work on the topic.
Recent Quality Estimation (QE) models based on multilingual pre-trained representations have achieved very competitive results when predicting the overall quality of translated sentences. Predicting translation errors, i.e. detecting specifically whi
ch words are incorrect, is a more challenging task, especially with limited amounts of training data. We hypothesize that, not unlike humans, successful QE models rely on translation errors to predict overall sentence quality. By exploring a set of feature attribution methods that assign relevance scores to the inputs to explain model predictions, we study the behaviour of state-of-the-art sentence-level QE models and show that explanations (i.e. rationales) extracted from these models can indeed be used to detect translation errors. We therefore (i) introduce a novel semi-supervised method for word-level QE and (ii) propose to use the QE task as a new benchmark for evaluating the plausibility of feature attribution, i.e. how interpretable model explanations are to humans.
Data augmentation is an approach that can effectively improve the performance of multimodal machine learning. This paper introduces a generative model for data augmentation by leveraging the correlations among multiple modalities. Different from conv
entional data augmentation approaches that apply low level operations with deterministic heuristics, our method proposes to learn an augmentation sampler that generates samples of the target modality conditioned on observed modalities in the variational auto-encoder framework. Additionally, the proposed model is able to quantify the confidence of augmented data by its generative probability, and can be jointly updated with a downstream pipeline. Experiments on Visual Question Answering tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed generative model, which is able to boost the strong UpDn-based models to the state-of-the-art performance.
Devising metrics to assess translation quality has always been at the core of machine translation (MT) research. Traditional automatic reference-based metrics, such as BLEU, have shown correlations with human judgements of adequacy and fluency and ha
ve been paramount for the advancement of MT system development. Crowd-sourcing has popularised and enabled the scalability of metrics based on human judgements, such as subjective direct assessments (DA) of adequacy, that are believed to be more reliable than reference-based automatic metrics. Finally, task-based measurements, such as post-editing time, are expected to provide a more detailed evaluation of the usefulness of translations for a specific task. Therefore, while DA averages adequacy judgements to obtain an appraisal of (perceived) quality independently of the task, and reference-based automatic metrics try to objectively estimate quality also in a task-independent way, task-based metrics are measurements obtained either during or after performing a specific task. In this paper we argue that, although expensive, task-based measurements are the most reliable when estimating MT quality in a specific task; in our case, this task is post-editing. To that end, we report experiments on a dataset with newly-collected post-editing indicators and show their usefulness when estimating post-editing effort. Our results show that task-based metrics comparing machine-translated and post-edit
Previous work on multimodal machine translation has shown that visual information is only needed in very specific cases, for example in the presence of ambiguous words where the textual context is not sufficient. As a consequence, models tend to lear
n to ignore this information. We propose a translate-and-refine approach to this problem where images are only used by a second stage decoder. This approach is trained jointly to generate a good first draft translation and to improve over this draft by (i) making better use of the target language textual context (both left and right-side contexts) and (ii) making use of visual context. This approach leads to the state of the art results. Additionally, we show that it has the ability to recover from erroneous or missing words in the source language.
A popular application of machine translation (MT) is gisting: MT is consumed as is to make sense of text in a foreign language. Evaluation of the usefulness of MT for gisting is surprisingly uncommon. The classical method uses reading comprehension q
uestionnaires (RCQ), in which informants are asked to answer professionally-written questions in their language about a foreign text that has been machine-translated into their language. Recently, gap-filling (GF), a form of cloze testing, has been proposed as a cheaper alternative to RCQ. In GF, certain words are removed from reference translations and readers are asked to fill the gaps left using the machine-translated text as a hint. This paper reports, for thefirst time, a comparative evaluation, using both RCQ and GF, of translations from multiple MT systems for the same foreign texts, and a systematic study on the effect of variables such as gap density, gap-selection strategies, and document context in GF. The main findings of the study are: (a) both RCQ and GF clearly identify MT to be useful, (b) global RCQ and GF rankings for the MT systems are mostly in agreement, (c) GF scores vary very widely across informants, making comparisons among MT systems hard, and (d) unlike RCQ, which is framed around documents, GF evaluation can be framed at the sentence level. These findings support the use of GF as a cheaper alternative to RCQ.
