Rethinking Offensive Text Detection as a Multi-Hop Reasoning Problem

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.10521v1
• Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 06:20:15 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Offensive Text Detection as a Multi-Hop Reasoning Problem
• Authors: Qiang Zhang, Jason Naradowsky, Yusuke Miyao
• Abstract summary: We introduce the task of implicit offensive text detection in dialogues. We argue that reasoning is crucial for understanding this broader class of offensive utterances. We release SLIGHT, a dataset to support research on this task.
• Score: 15.476899850339395
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce the task of implicit offensive text detection in dialogues, where a statement may have either an offensive or non-offensive interpretation, depending on the listener and context. We argue that reasoning is crucial for understanding this broader class of offensive utterances and release SLIGHT, a dataset to support research on this task. Experiments using the data show that state-of-the-art methods of offense detection perform poorly when asked to detect implicitly offensive statements, achieving only ${\sim} 11\%$ accuracy. In contrast to existing offensive text detection datasets, SLIGHT features human-annotated chains of reasoning which describe the mental process by which an offensive interpretation can be reached from each ambiguous statement. We explore the potential for a multi-hop reasoning approach by utilizing existing entailment models to score the probability of these chains and show that even naive reasoning models can yield improved performance in most situations. Furthermore, analysis of the chains provides insight into the human interpretation process and emphasizes the importance of incorporating additional commonsense knowledge.

Related papers

• ToxiCloakCN: Evaluating Robustness of Offensive Language Detection in Chinese with Cloaking Perturbations [6.360597788845826]
  This study examines the limitations of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) in identifying offensive content within systematically perturbed data. Our work highlights the urgent need for more advanced techniques in offensive language detection to combat the evolving tactics used to evade detection mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T02:44:56Z)
• Interpretable Multimodal Out-of-context Detection with Soft Logic Regularization [21.772064939915214]
  We propose a logic regularization approach for out-of-context detection called LOGRAN. The primary objective of LOGRAN is to decompose the out-of-context detection at the phrase level. We evaluate the performance of LOGRAN on the NewsCLIPpings dataset, showcasing competitive overall results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T08:57:25Z)
• Contrastive Learning for Inference in Dialogue [56.20733835058695]
  Inference, especially those derived from inductive processes, is a crucial component in our conversation. Recent large language models show remarkable advances in inference tasks. But their performance in inductive reasoning, where not all information is present in the context, is far behind deductive reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T04:49:36Z)
• Guiding Computational Stance Detection with Expanded Stance Triangle Framework [25.2980607215715]
  Stance detection determines whether the author of a piece of text is in favor of, against, or neutral towards a specified target. We decompose the stance detection task from a linguistic perspective, and investigate key components and inference paths in this task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T13:33:29Z)
• Disentangled Text Representation Learning with Information-Theoretic Perspective for Adversarial Robustness [17.5771010094384]
  Adversarial vulnerability remains a major obstacle to constructing reliable NLP systems. Recent work argues the adversarial vulnerability of the model is caused by the non-robust features in supervised training. In this paper, we tackle the adversarial challenge from the view of disentangled representation learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-26T18:14:39Z)
• Beyond Model Interpretability: On the Faithfulness and Adversarial Robustness of Contrastive Textual Explanations [2.543865489517869]
  This work motivates textual counterfactuals by laying the ground for a novel evaluation scheme inspired by the faithfulness of explanations. Experiments on sentiment analysis data show that the connectedness of counterfactuals to their original counterparts is not obvious in both models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T09:50:02Z)
• Revisiting the Roles of "Text" in Text Games [102.22750109468652]
  This paper investigates the roles of text in the face of different reinforcement learning challenges. We propose a simple scheme to extract relevant contextual information into an approximate state hash. Such a lightweight plug-in achieves competitive performance with state-of-the-art text agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-15T21:52:39Z)
• PROMPT WAYWARDNESS: The Curious Case of Discretized Interpretation of Continuous Prompts [99.03864962014431]
  Fine-tuning continuous prompts for target tasks has emerged as a compact alternative to full model fine-tuning. In practice, we observe a "wayward" behavior between the task solved by continuous prompts and their nearest neighbor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T18:55:05Z)
• Probing as Quantifying the Inductive Bias of Pre-trained Representations [99.93552997506438]
  We present a novel framework for probing where the goal is to evaluate the inductive bias of representations for a particular task. We apply our framework to a series of token-, arc-, and sentence-level tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T22:01:16Z)
• Narrative Incoherence Detection [76.43894977558811]
  We propose the task of narrative incoherence detection as a new arena for inter-sentential semantic understanding. Given a multi-sentence narrative, decide whether there exist any semantic discrepancies in the narrative flow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-21T07:18:08Z)
• Amnesic Probing: Behavioral Explanation with Amnesic Counterfactuals [53.484562601127195]
  We point out the inability to infer behavioral conclusions from probing results. We offer an alternative method that focuses on how the information is being used, rather than on what information is encoded.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-01T15:00:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.