The Landscape of Toxicity: An Empirical Investigation of Toxicity on GitHub

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08238v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:24:59 GMT
• Title: The Landscape of Toxicity: An Empirical Investigation of Toxicity on GitHub
• Authors: Jaydeb Sarker, Asif Kamal Turzo, Amiangshu Bosu,
• Abstract summary: profanity is the most frequent toxicity on GitHub, followed by trolling and insults. Corporate-sponsored projects are less toxic, but gaming projects are seven times more toxic than non-gaming ones. OSS contributors who have authored toxic comments in the past are significantly more likely to repeat such behavior.
• Score: 3.0586855806896054
• License:
• Abstract: Toxicity on GitHub can severely impact Open Source Software (OSS) development communities. To mitigate such behavior, a better understanding of its nature and how various measurable characteristics of project contexts and participants are associated with its prevalence is necessary. To achieve this goal, we conducted a large-scale mixed-method empirical study of 2,828 GitHub-based OSS projects randomly selected based on a stratified sampling strategy. Using ToxiCR, an SE domain-specific toxicity detector, we automatically classified each comment as toxic or non-toxic. Additionally, we manually analyzed a random sample of 600 comments to validate ToxiCR's performance and gain insights into the nature of toxicity within our dataset. The results of our study suggest that profanity is the most frequent toxicity on GitHub, followed by trolling and insults. While a project's popularity is positively associated with the prevalence of toxicity, its issue resolution rate has the opposite association. Corporate-sponsored projects are less toxic, but gaming projects are seven times more toxic than non-gaming ones. OSS contributors who have authored toxic comments in the past are significantly more likely to repeat such behavior. Moreover, such individuals are more likely to become targets of toxic texts.

Related papers

• Analyzing Toxicity in Open Source Software Communications Using Psycholinguistics and Moral Foundations Theory [5.03553492616371]
  This paper investigates a machine learning-based approach for the automatic detection of toxic communications in Open Source Software (OSS) We leverage psycholinguistic lexicons, and Moral Foundations Theory to analyze toxicity in two types of OSS communication channels; issue comments and code reviews. Using moral values as features is more effective than linguistic cues, resulting in 67.50% F1-measure in identifying toxic instances in code review data and 64.83% in issue comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T17:52:00Z)
• Exploring ChatGPT for Toxicity Detection in GitHub [5.003898791753481]
  The prevalence of negative discourse, often manifested as toxic comments, poses significant challenges to developer well-being and productivity. To identify such negativity in project communications, automated toxicity detection models are necessary. To train these models effectively, we need large software engineering-specific toxicity datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-20T15:23:00Z)
• Unveiling the Implicit Toxicity in Large Language Models [77.90933074675543]
  The open-endedness of large language models (LLMs) combined with their impressive capabilities may lead to new safety issues when being exploited for malicious use. We show that LLMs can generate diverse implicit toxic outputs that are exceptionally difficult to detect via simply zero-shot prompting. We propose a reinforcement learning (RL) based attacking method to further induce the implicit toxicity in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T06:42:36Z)
• Comprehensive Assessment of Toxicity in ChatGPT [49.71090497696024]
  We evaluate the toxicity in ChatGPT by utilizing instruction-tuning datasets. prompts in creative writing tasks can be 2x more likely to elicit toxic responses. Certain deliberately toxic prompts, designed in earlier studies, no longer yield harmful responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:37:53Z)
• Exploring Moral Principles Exhibited in OSS: A Case Study on GitHub Heated Issues [5.659436621527968]
  We analyze toxic communications in GitHub issue threads to identify and understand five types of moral principles exhibited in text. Preliminary findings suggest a possible link between moral principles and toxic comments in OSS communications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T15:42:10Z)
• ToxiSpanSE: An Explainable Toxicity Detection in Code Review Comments [4.949881799107062]
  ToxiSpanSE is the first tool to detect toxic spans in the Software Engineering (SE) domain. Our model achieved the best score with 0.88 $F1$, 0.87 precision, and 0.93 recall for toxic class tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T04:55:11Z)
• Facilitating Fine-grained Detection of Chinese Toxic Language: Hierarchical Taxonomy, Resources, and Benchmarks [18.44630180661091]
  Existing datasets lack fine-grained annotation of toxic types and expressions. It is crucial to introduce lexical knowledge to detect the toxicity of posts. In this paper, we facilitate the fine-grained detection of Chinese toxic language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-08T03:50:38Z)
• Detoxifying Text with MaRCo: Controllable Revision with Experts and Anti-Experts [57.38912708076231]
  We introduce MaRCo, a detoxification algorithm that combines controllable generation and text rewriting methods. MaRCo uses likelihoods under a non-toxic LM and a toxic LM to find candidate words to mask and potentially replace. We evaluate our method on several subtle toxicity and microaggressions datasets, and show that it not only outperforms baselines on automatic metrics, but MaRCo's rewrites are preferred 2.1 $times$ more in human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T18:50:00Z)
• Toxicity Detection can be Sensitive to the Conversational Context [64.28043776806213]
  We construct and publicly release a dataset of 10,000 posts with two kinds of toxicity labels. We introduce a new task, context sensitivity estimation, which aims to identify posts whose perceived toxicity changes if the context is also considered.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-19T13:57:26Z)
• Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detection [75.54119209776894]
  We investigate the effect of annotator identities (who) and beliefs (why) on toxic language annotations. We consider posts with three characteristics: anti-Black language, African American English dialect, and vulgarity. Our results show strong associations between annotator identity and beliefs and their ratings of toxicity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T18:58:20Z)
• RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models [93.151822563361]
  Pretrained neural language models (LMs) are prone to generating racist, sexist, or otherwise toxic language which hinders their safe deployment. We investigate the extent to which pretrained LMs can be prompted to generate toxic language, and the effectiveness of controllable text generation algorithms at preventing such toxic degeneration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-24T03:17:19Z)

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.