Diagnosing Hate Speech Classification: Where Do Humans and Machines Disagree, and Why?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10153v2
• Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 02:28:54 GMT
• Title: Diagnosing Hate Speech Classification: Where Do Humans and Machines Disagree, and Why?
• Authors: Xilin Yang,
• Abstract summary: We use cosine similarity ratio, embedding regression, and manual re-annotation to diagnose hate speech classification. Female annotators are more sensitive to racial slurs that target the black population. In diagnosing where machines disagree with human annotators, we found that machines make fewer mistakes than humans.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: This study uses the cosine similarity ratio, embedding regression, and manual re-annotation to diagnose hate speech classification. We begin by computing cosine similarity ratio on a dataset "Measuring Hate Speech" that contains 135,556 annotated comments on social media. This way, we show a basic use of cosine similarity as a description of hate speech content. We then diagnose hate speech classification starting from understanding the inconsistency of human annotation from the dataset. Using embedding regression as a basic diagnostic, we found that female annotators are more sensitive to racial slurs that target the black population. We perform with a more complicated diagnostic by training a hate speech classifier using a SoTA pre-trained large language model, NV-Embed-v2, to convert texts to embeddings and run a logistic regression. This classifier achieves a testing accuracy of 94%. In diagnosing where machines disagree with human annotators, we found that machines make fewer mistakes than humans despite the fact that human annotations are treated as ground truth in the training set. Machines perform better in correctly labeling long statements of facts, but perform worse in labeling short instances of swear words. We hypothesize that this is due to model alignment - while curating models at their creation prevents the models from producing obvious hate speech, it also reduces the model's ability to detect such content.

Related papers

• Hate Speech Detection Using Cross-Platform Social Media Data In English and German Language [6.200058263544999]
  This study focuses on detecting bilingual hate speech in YouTube comments. We include factors such as content similarity, definition similarity, and common hate words to measure the impact of datasets on performance. The best performance was obtained by combining datasets from YouTube comments, Twitter, and Gab with an F1-score of 0.74 and 0.68 for English and German YouTube comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T10:22:53Z)
• SpeechAlign: Aligning Speech Generation to Human Preferences [51.684183257809075]
  We introduce SpeechAlign, an iterative self-improvement strategy that aligns speech language models to human preferences. We show that SpeechAlign can bridge the distribution gap and facilitate continuous self-improvement of the speech language model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T15:21:17Z)
• HARE: Explainable Hate Speech Detection with Step-by-Step Reasoning [29.519687405350304]
  We introduce a hate speech detection framework, HARE, which harnesses the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to fill gaps in explanations of hate speech. Experiments on SBIC and Implicit Hate benchmarks show that our method, using model-generated data, consistently outperforms baselines. Our method enhances the explanation quality of trained models and improves generalization to unseen datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T06:09:54Z)
• Hate Speech Detection in Limited Data Contexts using Synthetic Data Generation [1.9506923346234724]
  We propose a data augmentation approach that addresses the problem of lack of data for online hate speech detection in limited data contexts. We present three methods to synthesize new examples of hate speech data in a target language that retains the hate sentiment in the original examples but transfers the hate targets. Our findings show that a model trained on synthetic data performs comparably to, and in some cases outperforms, a model trained only on the samples available in the target domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T15:10:06Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Spurious Correlations in Text Classification with Neighborhood Analysis [69.07674653828565]
  Machine learning models have a tendency to leverage spurious correlations that exist in the training set but may not hold true in general circumstances. In this paper, we examine the implications of spurious correlations through a novel perspective called neighborhood analysis. We propose a family of regularization methods, NFL (doN't Forget your Language) to mitigate spurious correlations in text classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T03:55:50Z)
• CoSyn: Detecting Implicit Hate Speech in Online Conversations Using a Context Synergized Hyperbolic Network [52.85130555886915]
  CoSyn is a context-synergized neural network that explicitly incorporates user- and conversational context for detecting implicit hate speech in online conversations. We show that CoSyn outperforms all our baselines in detecting implicit hate speech with absolute improvements in the range of 1.24% - 57.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-02T17:30:43Z)
• Language Model Classifier Aligns Better with Physician Word Sensitivity than XGBoost on Readmission Prediction [86.15787587540132]
  We introduce sensitivity score, a metric that scrutinizes models' behaviors at the vocabulary level. Our experiments compare the decision-making logic of clinicians and classifiers based on rank correlations of sensitivity scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-13T23:59:11Z)
• 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)
• Addressing the Challenges of Cross-Lingual Hate Speech Detection [115.1352779982269]
  In this paper we focus on cross-lingual transfer learning to support hate speech detection in low-resource languages. We leverage cross-lingual word embeddings to train our neural network systems on the source language and apply it to the target language. We investigate the issue of label imbalance of hate speech datasets, since the high ratio of non-hate examples compared to hate examples often leads to low model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-15T20:48:14Z)
• HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detection [27.05719607624675]
  We introduce HateXplain, the first benchmark hate speech dataset covering multiple aspects of the issue. Each post in our dataset is annotated from three different perspectives. We observe that models, which utilize the human rationales for training, perform better in reducing unintended bias towards target communities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-18T15:12:14Z)
• Demoting Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection [39.376886409461775]
  In current hate speech datasets, there exists a correlation between annotators' perceptions of toxicity and signals of African American English (AAE) In this paper, we use adversarial training to mitigate this bias, introducing a hate speech classifier that learns to detect toxic sentences while demoting confounds corresponding to AAE texts. Experimental results on a hate speech dataset and an AAE dataset suggest that our method is able to substantially reduce the false positive rate for AAE text while only minimally affecting the performance of hate speech classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-25T17:43:22Z)

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.