NoisyHate: Benchmarking Content Moderation Machine Learning Models with Human-Written Perturbations Online

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10430v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2023 14:54:57 GMT
• Title: NoisyHate: Benchmarking Content Moderation Machine Learning Models with Human-Written Perturbations Online
• Authors: Yiran Ye and Thai Le and Dongwon Lee
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a benchmark test set containing human-written perturbations online for toxic speech detection models. We also test this data on state-of-the-art language models, such as BERT and RoBERTa, to demonstrate the adversarial attack with real human-written perturbations is still effective.
• Score: 14.95221806760152
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Online texts with toxic content are a threat in social media that might cause cyber harassment. Although many platforms applied measures, such as machine learning-based hate-speech detection systems, to diminish their effect, those toxic content publishers can still evade the system by modifying the spelling of toxic words. Those modified words are also known as human-written text perturbations. Many research works developed certain techniques to generate adversarial samples to help the machine learning models obtain the ability to recognize those perturbations. However, there is still a gap between those machine-generated perturbations and human-written perturbations. In this paper, we introduce a benchmark test set containing human-written perturbations online for toxic speech detection models. We also recruited a group of workers to evaluate the quality of this test set and dropped low-quality samples. Meanwhile, to check if our perturbation can be normalized to its clean version, we applied spell corrector algorithms on this dataset. Finally, we test this data on state-of-the-art language models, such as BERT and RoBERTa, and black box APIs, such as perspective API, to demonstrate the adversarial attack with real human-written perturbations is still effective.

Related papers

• Navigating the Shadows: Unveiling Effective Disturbances for Modern AI Content Detectors [24.954755569786396]
  AI-text detection has emerged to distinguish between human and machine-generated content. Recent research indicates that these detection systems often lack robustness and struggle to effectively differentiate perturbed texts. Our work simulates real-world scenarios in both informal and professional writing, exploring the out-of-the-box performance of current detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T08:37:01Z)
• Humanizing Machine-Generated Content: Evading AI-Text Detection through Adversarial Attack [24.954755569786396]
  We propose a framework for a broader class of adversarial attacks, designed to perform minor perturbations in machine-generated content to evade detection. We consider two attack settings: white-box and black-box, and employ adversarial learning in dynamic scenarios to assess the potential enhancement of the current detection model's robustness. The empirical results reveal that the current detection models can be compromised in as little as 10 seconds, leading to the misclassification of machine-generated text as human-written content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T12:49:22Z)
• Fine-Tuning Llama 2 Large Language Models for Detecting Online Sexual Predatory Chats and Abusive Texts [2.406214748890827]
  This paper proposes an approach to detection of online sexual predatory chats and abusive language using the open-source pretrained Llama 2 7B- parameter model. We fine-tune the LLM using datasets with different sizes, imbalance degrees, and languages (i.e., English, Roman Urdu and Urdu) Experimental results show a strong performance of the proposed approach, which performs proficiently and consistently across three distinct datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T16:18:50Z)
• MISMATCH: Fine-grained Evaluation of Machine-generated Text with Mismatch Error Types [68.76742370525234]
  We propose a new evaluation scheme to model human judgments in 7 NLP tasks, based on the fine-grained mismatches between a pair of texts. Inspired by the recent efforts in several NLP tasks for fine-grained evaluation, we introduce a set of 13 mismatch error types. We show that the mismatch errors between the sentence pairs on the held-out datasets from 7 NLP tasks align well with the human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T01:38:53Z)
• Verifying the Robustness of Automatic Credibility Assessment [79.08422736721764]
  Text classification methods have been widely investigated as a way to detect content of low credibility. In some cases insignificant changes in input text can mislead the models. We introduce BODEGA: a benchmark for testing both victim models and attack methods on misinformation detection tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-14T16:11:47Z)
• Countering Malicious Content Moderation Evasion in Online Social Networks: Simulation and Detection of Word Camouflage [64.78260098263489]
  Twisting and camouflaging keywords are among the most used techniques to evade platform content moderation systems. This article contributes significantly to countering malicious information by developing multilingual tools to simulate and detect new methods of evasion of content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-27T16:08:49Z)
• Panning for gold: Lessons learned from the platform-agnostic automated detection of political content in textual data [48.7576911714538]
  We discuss how these techniques can be used to detect political content across different platforms. We compare the performance of three groups of detection techniques relying on dictionaries, supervised machine learning, or neural networks. Our results show the limited impact of preprocessing on model performance, with the best results for less noisy data being achieved by neural network- and machine-learning-based models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-01T15:23:23Z)
• Deep Learning for Hate Speech Detection: A Comparative Study [54.42226495344908]
  We present here a large-scale empirical comparison of deep and shallow hate-speech detection methods. Our goal is to illuminate progress in the area, and identify strengths and weaknesses in the current state-of-the-art. In doing so we aim to provide guidance as to the use of hate-speech detection in practice, quantify the state-of-the-art, and identify future research directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-19T03:48:20Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)

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.