Re-examining Sexism and Misogyny Classification with Annotator Attitudes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03543v1
• Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 15:57:58 GMT
• Title: Re-examining Sexism and Misogyny Classification with Annotator Attitudes
• Authors: Aiqi Jiang, Nikolas Vitsakis, Tanvi Dinkar, Gavin Abercrombie, Ioannis Konstas,
• Abstract summary: Gender-Based Violence (GBV) is an increasing problem online, but existing datasets fail to capture the plurality of possible annotator perspectives. We revisit two important stages in the moderation pipeline for GBV: (1) manual data labelling; and (2) automated classification.
• Score: 9.544313152137262
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Gender-Based Violence (GBV) is an increasing problem online, but existing datasets fail to capture the plurality of possible annotator perspectives or ensure the representation of affected groups. We revisit two important stages in the moderation pipeline for GBV: (1) manual data labelling; and (2) automated classification. For (1), we examine two datasets to investigate the relationship between annotator identities and attitudes and the responses they give to two GBV labelling tasks. To this end, we collect demographic and attitudinal information from crowd-sourced annotators using three validated surveys from Social Psychology. We find that higher Right Wing Authoritarianism scores are associated with a higher propensity to label text as sexist, while for Social Dominance Orientation and Neosexist Attitudes, higher scores are associated with a negative tendency to do so. For (2), we conduct classification experiments using Large Language Models and five prompting strategies, including infusing prompts with annotator information. We find: (i) annotator attitudes affect the ability of classifiers to predict their labels; (ii) including attitudinal information can boost performance when we use well-structured brief annotator descriptions; and (iii) models struggle to reflect the increased complexity and imbalanced classes of the new label sets.

Related papers

• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• Fair Deepfake Detectors Can Generalize [51.21167546843708]
  We show that controlling for confounders (data distribution and model capacity) enables improved generalization via fairness interventions.<n>Motivated by this insight, we propose Demographic Attribute-insensitive Intervention Detection (DAID), a plug-and-play framework composed of: i) Demographic-aware data rebalancing, which employs inverse-propensity weighting and subgroup-wise feature normalization to neutralize distributional biases; and ii) Demographic-agnostic feature aggregation, which uses a novel alignment loss to suppress sensitive-attribute signals.<n>DAID consistently achieves superior performance in both fairness and generalization compared to several state-of-the-art
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T14:10:02Z)
• Explaining Matters: Leveraging Definitions and Semantic Expansion for Sexism Detection [9.477601265462694]
  We propose two prompt-based data augmentation techniques for sexism detection.<n>We also introduce an ensemble strategy that resolves prediction ties by aggregating complementary perspectives from multiple language models.<n>Our experimental evaluation on the EDOS dataset demonstrates state-of-the-art performance across all tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T16:58:12Z)
• Exploring the Influence of Label Aggregation on Minority Voices: Implications for Dataset Bias and Model Training [10.00533358414859]
  We study the impact of standard label aggregation strategies on minority opinion representation in sexism detection. We investigate the quality and value of minority annotations, and then examine their effect on the class distributions in gold labels. We discuss the potential biases introduced by each method and how they can be amplified by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-05T10:00:49Z)
• GenderBias-\emph{VL}: Benchmarking Gender Bias in Vision Language Models via Counterfactual Probing [72.0343083866144]
  This paper introduces the GenderBias-emphVL benchmark to evaluate occupation-related gender bias in Large Vision-Language Models. Using our benchmark, we extensively evaluate 15 commonly used open-source LVLMs and state-of-the-art commercial APIs. Our findings reveal widespread gender biases in existing LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T05:55:15Z)
• The Male CEO and the Female Assistant: Evaluation and Mitigation of Gender Biases in Text-To-Image Generation of Dual Subjects [58.27353205269664]
  We propose the Paired Stereotype Test (PST) framework, which queries T2I models to depict two individuals assigned with male-stereotyped and female-stereotyped social identities. PST queries T2I models to depict two individuals assigned with male-stereotyped and female-stereotyped social identities. Using PST, we evaluate two aspects of gender biases -- the well-known bias in gendered occupation and a novel aspect: bias in organizational power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T21:32:27Z)
• Capturing Perspectives of Crowdsourced Annotators in Subjective Learning Tasks [9.110872603799839]
  Supervised classification heavily depends on datasets annotated by humans. In subjective tasks such as toxicity classification, these annotations often exhibit low agreement among raters. In this work, we propose textbfAnnotator Awares for Texts (AART) for subjective classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:18:32Z)
• VisoGender: A dataset for benchmarking gender bias in image-text pronoun resolution [80.57383975987676]
  VisoGender is a novel dataset for benchmarking gender bias in vision-language models. We focus on occupation-related biases within a hegemonic system of binary gender, inspired by Winograd and Winogender schemas. We benchmark several state-of-the-art vision-language models and find that they demonstrate bias in resolving binary gender in complex scenes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-21T17:59:51Z)
• When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Tasks [45.14664901245331]
  A crucial problem in hate speech detection is determining whether a statement is offensive to a demographic group. We construct a model that predicts individual annotator ratings on potentially offensive text. We find that annotator ratings can be predicted using their demographic information and opinions on online content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-11T07:55:20Z)
• Stable Bias: Analyzing Societal Representations in Diffusion Models [72.27121528451528]
  We propose a new method for exploring the social biases in Text-to-Image (TTI) systems. Our approach relies on characterizing the variation in generated images triggered by enumerating gender and ethnicity markers in the prompts. We leverage this method to analyze images generated by 3 popular TTI systems and find that while all of their outputs show correlations with US labor demographics, they also consistently under-represent marginalized identities to different extents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-20T19:32:49Z)
• Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Information [11.227630261409706]
  We study whether the text of a task and annotators' demographic background information can be used to estimate the level of disagreement among annotators. Our results show that knowing annotators' demographic information, like gender, ethnicity, and education level, helps predict disagreements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-12T14:04:53Z)
• Towards Intersectionality in Machine Learning: Including More Identities, Handling Underrepresentation, and Performing Evaluation [23.661509482014058]
  We grapple with questions that arise along three stages of the machine learning pipeline when incorporating intersectionality as multiple demographic attributes. We advocate for supplementing domain knowledge with empirical validation when choosing which demographic attribute labels to train on. We warn against using data imbalance techniques without considering their normative implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-10T01:00:52Z)
• Quantifying Learnability and Describability of Visual Concepts Emerging in Representation Learning [91.58529629419135]
  We consider how to characterise visual groupings discovered automatically by deep neural networks. We introduce two concepts, visual learnability and describability, that can be used to quantify the interpretability of arbitrary image groupings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-27T18:41:49Z)
• Contrastive Examples for Addressing the Tyranny of the Majority [83.93825214500131]
  We propose to create a balanced training dataset, consisting of the original dataset plus new data points in which the group memberships are intervened. We show that current generative adversarial networks are a powerful tool for learning these data points, called contrastive examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-14T14:06:44Z)

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.