A Taxonomy of Rater Disagreements: Surveying Challenges & Opportunities from the Perspective of Annotating Online Toxicity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.04345v1
• Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2023 21:00:51 GMT
• Title: A Taxonomy of Rater Disagreements: Surveying Challenges & Opportunities from the Perspective of Annotating Online Toxicity
• Authors: Wenbo Zhang, Hangzhi Guo, Ian D Kivlichan, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Davis Yadav, Amulya Yadav
• Abstract summary: Toxicity is an increasingly common and severe issue in online spaces. A rich line of machine learning research has focused on computationally detecting and mitigating online toxicity. Recent research has pointed out the importance of accounting for the subjective nature of this task.
• Score: 15.23055494327071
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Toxicity is an increasingly common and severe issue in online spaces. Consequently, a rich line of machine learning research over the past decade has focused on computationally detecting and mitigating online toxicity. These efforts crucially rely on human-annotated datasets that identify toxic content of various kinds in social media texts. However, such annotations historically yield low inter-rater agreement, which was often dealt with by taking the majority vote or other such approaches to arrive at a single ground truth label. Recent research has pointed out the importance of accounting for the subjective nature of this task when building and utilizing these datasets, and this has triggered work on analyzing and better understanding rater disagreements, and how they could be effectively incorporated into the machine learning developmental pipeline. While these efforts are filling an important gap, there is a lack of a broader framework about the root causes of rater disagreement, and therefore, we situate this work within that broader landscape. In this survey paper, we analyze a broad set of literature on the reasons behind rater disagreements focusing on online toxicity, and propose a detailed taxonomy for the same. Further, we summarize and discuss the potential solutions targeting each reason for disagreement. We also discuss several open issues, which could promote the future development of online toxicity research.

Related papers

• The Odyssey of Commonsense Causality: From Foundational Benchmarks to Cutting-Edge Reasoning [70.16523526957162]
  Understanding commonsense causality helps people understand the principles of the real world better. Despite its significance, a systematic exploration of this topic is notably lacking. Our work aims to provide a systematic overview, update scholars on recent advancements, and provide a pragmatic guide for beginners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T16:30:50Z)
• A comprehensive cross-language framework for harmful content detection with the aid of sentiment analysis [0.356008609689971]
  This study introduces, for the first time, a detailed framework adaptable to any language. A key component of the framework is the development of a general and detailed annotation guideline. The integration of sentiment analysis represents a novel approach to enhancing harmful language detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-02T17:13:47Z)
• Recent Advances in Hate Speech Moderation: Multimodality and the Role of Large Models [52.24001776263608]
  This comprehensive survey delves into the recent strides in HS moderation. We highlight the burgeoning role of large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) We identify existing gaps in research, particularly in the context of underrepresented languages and cultures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T03:51:44Z)
• Modeling subjectivity (by Mimicking Annotator Annotation) in toxic comment identification across diverse communities [3.0284081180864675]
  This study aims to identify intuitive variances from annotator disagreement using quantitative analysis. We also evaluate the model's ability to mimic diverse viewpoints on toxicity by varying size of the training data. We conclude that subjectivity is evident across all annotator groups, demonstrating the shortcomings of majority-rule voting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T00:17:11Z)
• Fairness meets Cross-Domain Learning: a new perspective on Models and Metrics [80.07271410743806]
  We study the relationship between cross-domain learning (CD) and model fairness. We introduce a benchmark on face and medical images spanning several demographic groups as well as classification and localization tasks. Our study covers 14 CD approaches alongside three state-of-the-art fairness algorithms and shows how the former can outperform the latter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T09:34:05Z)
• Aggression and "hate speech" in communication of media users: analysis of control capabilities [50.591267188664666]
  Authors studied the possibilities of mutual influence of users in new media. They found a high level of aggression and hate speech when discussing an urgent social problem - measures for COVID-19 fighting. Results can be useful for developing media content in a modern digital environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-25T15:53:32Z)
• Causal Reasoning Meets Visual Representation Learning: A Prospective Study [117.08431221482638]
  Lack of interpretability, robustness, and out-of-distribution generalization are becoming the challenges of the existing visual models. Inspired by the strong inference ability of human-level agents, recent years have witnessed great effort in developing causal reasoning paradigms. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of this emerging field, attract attention, encourage discussions, bring to the forefront the urgency of developing novel causal reasoning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T02:22:28Z)
• Healthy Twitter discussions? Time will tell [0.0]
  We consider the use of temporal dynamic patterns as an indicator of discussion health. First we explore the types of discussions in an unsupervised manner, and then characterize these types using the concept of ephemerality. In the end, we discuss the potential use of our ephemerality definition for labeling online discourses based on how desirable, healthy and constructive they are.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T18:43:40Z)
• Towards Identifying Social Bias in Dialog Systems: Frame, Datasets, and Benchmarks [95.29345070102045]
  In this paper, we focus our investigation on social bias detection of dialog safety problems. We first propose a novel Dial-Bias Frame for analyzing the social bias in conversations pragmatically. We introduce CDail-Bias dataset that is the first well-annotated Chinese social bias dialog dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-16T11:59:29Z)
• Handling Bias in Toxic Speech Detection: A Survey [26.176340438312376]
  We look at proposed methods for evaluating and mitigating bias in toxic speech detection. Case study introduces the concept of bias shift due to knowledge-based bias mitigation. Survey concludes with an overview of the critical challenges, research gaps, and future directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T10:38:36Z)
• Text and Causal Inference: A Review of Using Text to Remove Confounding from Causal Estimates [15.69581581445705]
  An individual's entire history of social media posts or the content of a news article could provide a rich measurement of confounders. Despite increased attention on adjusting for confounding using text, there are still many open problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T23:20:49Z)

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.