A Weakly Supervised Classifier and Dataset of White Supremacist Language (2023.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies on white supremacist language have focused on specific hateful ideologies, but little attention has been given to specific hate speech. |
| Approach: | They propose a weakly supervised classifier for detecting white supremacist language . they use large datasets of white supremacy domains paired with neutral and anti-racist data from similar domains to train the classifiers. |
| Outcome: | The proposed classifiers outperform previous studies on white supremacist classification on unseen datasets and find strong generalization performance for models with weakly annotated data. |
Similar Papers
Data-Efficient Strategies for Expanding Hate Speech Detection into Under-Resourced Languages (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Hate speech datasets focus on English-language content, hindering effective models . annotating hateful content is expensive, time-consuming and potentially harmful to annotators. |
| Approach: | They propose to use ISO 639-1 codes to fine-tune models on one source language and apply them to another language. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach performs well on some tasks, but fails on many others. |
HARALD: Augmenting Hate Speech Data Sets with Real Data (2022.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Hate speech detection depends on the availability of variable labeled data. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that uses real unlabelled data from online platforms to augment existing models by harvesting and processing it. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach improves the classification performance of hate speech classification models. |
Fight Fire with Fire: Fine-tuning Hate Detectors using Large Samples of Generated Hate Speech (2021.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for hate speech detection are limited in size and lack of labeled datasets. |
| Approach: | They employ pretrained language models to generate large amounts of hate speech sequences from available labeled examples. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves generalization significantly and consistently within and across data distributions. |
On the Robustness of Offensive Language Classifiers (2022.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies on offensive language classifiers have focused on primitive attacks such as misspellings and extraneous spaces. |
| Approach: | They analyze the robustness of offensive language classifiers against crafty adversarial attacks that leverage greedy- and attention-based word selection and context-aware embeddings for word replacement. |
| Outcome: | The proposed classifiers are robust against more crafty attacks that leverage greedy- and attention-based word selection and context-aware embeddings for word replacement. |
The Risk of Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Annotators’ insensitivity to differences in dialect can lead to racial bias in automatic hate speech detection models, potentially amplifying harm against minority populations. |
| Approach: | They propose *dialect* and *race priming* as ways to reduce the racial bias in hate speech detection models by detecting differences in dialects in annotated tweets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models acquire and propagate these biases, such that AAE tweets and tweets by self-identified African Americans are up to two times more likely to be labelled as offensive compared to others. |
OLEA: Tool and Infrastructure for Offensive Language Error Analysis in English (2023.eacl-demo)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | State-of-the-art models for identifying offensive language fail to generalize over nuanced or implicit cases of offensive and hateful language. |
| Approach: | They propose an open-source Python library for error analysis in the context of offensive language detection. |
| Outcome: | OLEA provides tools for error analysis in the context of detecting offensive language in English. |
Toxic, Hateful, Offensive or Abusive? What Are We Really Classifying? An Empirical Analysis of Hate Speech Datasets (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent study shows that many definitions are being used for equivalent concepts, making most datasets incompatible. |
| Approach: | They analyze six publicly available datasets to determine their similarity and compatibility . they propose to use Fast Text word vectors to analyze similarity between different datasets . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs better on similar datasets and worse on more non-offensive samples. |
Challenges in Automated Debiasing for Toxic Language Detection (2021.eacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for debiasing toxic language data are limited in their ability to prevent biased behavior in toxic language detection systems. |
| Approach: | They propose to debiase toxic language detection models using lexical and dialectal markers using synthetic labels instead of traditional methods. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method reduces dialectal associations with toxicity despite the use of synthetic labels . |
So Hateful! Building a Multi-Label Hate Speech Annotated Arabic Dataset (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Social media enables widespread propagation of hate speech targeting groups based on ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics. |
| Approach: | They analyze 70,000 Arabic tweets to identify hate speech patterns and train models . 15% of tweets contain offensive language while 6% have hate speech . authors hope to prevent spread of hateful content on social media platforms . |
| Outcome: | The analysis of 70,000 Arabic tweets shows that 15% of tweets contain offensive language while 6% have hate speech . 10% of tweet provide verifiable factual claims, and 7% are deemed important . |
HateGAN: Adversarial Generative-Based Data Augmentation for Hate Speech Detection (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to detect online hate speech depend heavily on labeled datasets for training, which results in poor detection performance of the hate speech class. |
| Approach: | They propose a deep generative reinforcement learning model which augments two commonly-used hate speech detection datasets with the HateGAN generated tweets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves the detection performance of hate speech class regardless of the classifiers and datasets used in the detection task. |