Collaborating Authors

Towards Equal Gender Representation in the Annotations of Toxic Language Detection Artificial Intelligence

Classifiers tend to propagate biases present in the data on which they are trained. Hence, it is important to understand how the demographic identities of the annotators of comments affect the fairness of the resulting model. In this paper, we focus on the differences in the ways men and women annotate comments for toxicity, investigating how these differences result in models that amplify the opinions of male annotators. We find that the BERT model as-sociates toxic comments containing offensive words with male annotators, causing the model to predict 67.7% of toxic comments as having been annotated by men. We show that this disparity between gender predictions can be mitigated by removing offensive words and highly toxic comments from the training data. We then apply the learned associations between gender and language to toxic language classifiers, finding that models trained exclusively on female-annotated data perform 1.8% better than those trained solely on male-annotated data and that training models on data after removing all offensive words reduces bias in the model by 55.5% while increasing the sensitivity by 0.4%.

Constructive and Toxic Speech Detection for Open-domain Social Media Comments in Vietnamese Artificial Intelligence

The rise of social media has led to the increasing of comments on online forums. However, there still exists some invalid comments which were not informative for users. Moreover, those comments are also quite toxic and harmful to people. In this paper, we create a dataset for classifying constructive and toxic speech detection, named UIT-ViCTSD (Vietnamese Constructive and Toxic Speech Detection dataset) with 10,000 human-annotated comments. For these tasks, we proposed a system for constructive and toxic speech detection with the state-of-the-art transfer learning model in Vietnamese NLP as PhoBERT. With this system, we achieved 78.59% and 59.40% F1-score for identifying constructive and toxic comments separately. Besides, to have an objective assessment for the dataset, we implement a variety of baseline models as traditional Machine Learning and Deep Neural Network-Based models. With the results, we can solve some problems on the online discussions and develop the framework for identifying constructiveness and toxicity Vietnamese social media comments automatically.

Designing Evaluations of Machine Learning Models for Subjective Inference: The Case of Sentence Toxicity Machine Learning

Machine Learning (ML) is increasingly applied in real-life scenarios, raising concerns about bias in automatic decision making. We focus on bias as a notion of opinion exclusion, that stems from the direct application of traditional ML pipelines to infer subjective properties. We argue that such ML systems should be evaluated with subjectivity and bias in mind. Considering the lack of evaluation standards yet to create evaluation benchmarks, we propose an initial list of specifications to define prior to creating evaluation datasets, in order to later accurately evaluate the biases. With the example of a sentence toxicity inference system, we illustrate how the specifications support the analysis of biases related to subjectivity. We highlight difficulties in instantiating these specifications and list future work for the crowdsourcing community to help the creation of appropriate evaluation datasets.

Unfairness towards subjective opinions in Machine Learning Machine Learning

Despite the high interest for Machine Learning (ML) in academia and industry, many issues related to the application of ML to real-life problems are yet to be addressed. Here we put forward one limitation which arises from a lack of adaptation of ML models and datasets to specific applications. We formalise a new notion of unfairness as exclusion of opinions. We propose ways to quantify this unfairness, and aid understanding its causes through visualisation. These insights into the functioning of ML-based systems hint at methods to mitigate unfairness.

Empirical Analysis of Multi-Task Learning for Reducing Model Bias in Toxic Comment Detection Artificial Intelligence

Empirical Analysis of Multi-T ask Learning for Reducing Model Bias in T oxic Comment Detection Ameya V aidya, 1 Feng Mai, 2 Y ue Ning 3 1 Bridgewater-Raritan Regional High School 2 School of Business, Stevens Institute of Technology 3 Department of Computer Science, Stevens Institute of Technology, Abstract With the recent rise of toxicity in online conversations on social media platforms, using modern machine learning algorithms for toxic comment detection has become a central focus of many online applications. Researchers and companies have developed a variety of shallow and deep learning models to identify toxicity in online conversations, reviews, or comments with mixed successes. However, these existing approaches have learned to incorrectly associate nontoxic comments that have certain trigger-words (e.g. In this paper, we evaluate dozens of state-of-the-art models with the specific focus of reducing model bias towards these commonly-attacked identity groups. We propose a multi-task learning model with an attention layer that jointly learns to predict the toxicity of a comment as well as the identities present in the comments in order to reduce this bias. We then compare our model to an array of shallow and deep-learning models using metrics designed especially to test for unintended model bias within these identity groups. Introduction The identification of potential toxicity within online conversations has always been a significant task for current platform providers. Toxic comments have the unfortunate effect of causing users to leave a discussion or give up sharing their perspective and can give a bad reputation to platforms where these discussions take place. Twitter's CEO reaffirmed that Twitter is still being overrun by spam, abuse, and misinformation. Current research involves investigating common challenges in toxic comment classification (van Aken et al. 2018), identifying subtle forms of toxicity (Noever 2018), detecting early signs of toxicity (Zhang et al. 2018), and analysing sarcasm within conversations (Ghosh, Fabbri, and Muresan 2018).