This paper introduces a method for detecting inappropriately targeting language in online conversations by integrating crowd and expert annotations with ChatGPT. We focus on English conversation threads from Reddit, examining comments that target individuals or groups. Our approach involves a comprehensive annotation framework that labels a diverse data set for various target categories and specific target words within the conversational context. We perform a comparative analysis of annotations from human experts, crowd annotators, and ChatGPT, revealing strengths and limitations of each method in recognizing both explicit hate speech and subtler discriminatory language. Our findings highlight the significant role of contextual factors in identifying hate speech and uncover new categories of targeting, such as social belief and body image. We also address the challenges and subjective judgments involved in annotation and the limitations of ChatGPT in grasping nuanced language. This study provides insights for improving automated content moderation strategies to enhance online safety and inclusivity.

Obtaining an explicit understanding of communication within a Hybrid Intelligence collaboration is essential to create controllable and transparent agents. In this paper, we describe a number of Natural Language Understanding models that extract explicit symbolic triples from social conversation. Triple extraction has mostly been developed and tested for Knowledge Base Completion using Wikipedia text and data for training and testing. However, social conversation is very different as a genre in which interlocutors exchange information in sequences of utterances that involve statements, questions, and answers. Phenomena such as co-reference, ellipsis, coordination, and implicit and explicit negation or confirmation are more prominent in conversation than in Wikipedia text. We therefore describe an attempt to fill this gap by releasing data sets for training and testing triple extraction from social conversation. We also created five triple extraction models and tested them in our evaluation data. The highest precision is 51.14 for complete triples and 69.32 for triple elements when tested on single utterances. However, scores for conversational triples that span multiple turns are much lower, showing that extracting knowledge from true conversational data is much more challenging.

Inspired by the cognitive science theory, we explicitly model an agent with both semantic and episodic memory systems, and show that it is better than having just one of the two memory systems. In order to show this, we have designed and released our own challenging environment, "the Room", compatible with OpenAI Gym, where an agent has to properly learn how to encode, store, and retrieve memories to maximize its rewards. The Room environment allows for a hybrid intelligence setup where machines and humans can collaborate. We show that two agents collaborating with each other results in better performance than one agent acting alone.

We develop an artificial agent motivated to augment its knowledge base beyond its initial training. The agent actively participates in dialogues with other agents, strategically acquiring new information. The agent models its knowledge as an RDF knowledge graph, integrating new beliefs acquired through conversation. Responses in dialogue are generated by identifying graph patterns around these new integrated beliefs. We show that policies can be learned using reinforcement learning to select effective graph patterns during an interaction, without relying on explicit user feedback. Within this context, our study is a proof of concept for leveraging users as effective sources of information.

Social media conversations frequently suffer from toxicity, creating significant issues for users, moderators, and entire communities. Events in the real world, like elections or conflicts, can initiate and escalate toxic behavior online. Our study investigates how real-world events influence the origin and spread of toxicity in online discussions across various languages and regions. We gathered Reddit data comprising 4.5 million comments from 31 thousand posts in six different languages (Dutch, English, German, Arabic, Turkish and Spanish). We target fifteen major social and political world events that occurred between 2020 and 2023. We observe significant variations in toxicity, negative sentiment, and emotion expressions across different events and language communities, showing that toxicity is a complex phenomenon in which many different factors interact and still need to be investigated. We will release the data for further research along with our code.

Cross-lingual transfer has become an effective way of transferring knowledge between languages. In this paper, we explore an oftenoverlooked aspect in this domain: the influence of the source language of a language model on language transfer performance. We consider a case where the target language and its script are not part of the pre-trained model. We conduct a series of experiments on monolingual and multilingual models that are pre-trained on different tokenization methods to determine factors that affect cross-lingual transfer to a new language with a unique script. Our findings reveal the importance of the tokenizer as a Figure 1: We analyze the effect of script and tokenizer stronger factor than the shared script, language on cross-lingual transfer on a target language with a new similarity, and model size.

Recent work has demonstrated that the latent spaces of large language models (LLMs) contain directions predictive of the truth of sentences. Multiple methods recover such directions and build probes that are described as getting at a model's "knowledge" or "beliefs". We investigate this phenomenon, looking closely at the impact of context on the probes. Our experiments establish where in the LLM the probe's predictions can be described as being conditional on the preceding (related) sentences. Specifically, we quantify the responsiveness of the probes to the presence of (negated) supporting and contradicting sentences, and score the probes on their consistency. We also perform a causal intervention experiment, investigating whether moving the representation of a premise along these belief directions influences the position of the hypothesis along that same direction. We find that the probes we test are generally context sensitive, but that contexts which should not affect the truth often still impact the probe outputs. Our experiments show that the type of errors depend on the layer, the (type of) model, and the kind of data. Finally, our results suggest that belief directions are (one of the) causal mediators in the inference process that incorporates in-context information.

Large-scale survey tools enable the collection of citizen feedback in opinion corpora. Extracting the key arguments from a large and noisy set of opinions helps in understanding the opinions quickly and accurately. Fully automated methods can extract arguments but (1) require large labeled datasets that induce large annotation costs and (2) work well for known viewpoints, but not for novel points of view. We propose HyEnA, a hybrid (human + AI) method for extracting arguments from opinionated texts, combining the speed of automated processing with the understanding and reasoning capabilities of humans. We evaluate HyEnA on three citizen feedback corpora. We find that, on the one hand, HyEnA achieves higher coverage and precision than a state-of-the-art automated method when compared to a common set of diverse opinions, justifying the need for human insight. On the other hand, HyEnA requires less human effort and does not compromise quality compared to (fully manual) expert analysis, demonstrating the benefit of combining human and artificial intelligence.

Presenting high-level arguments is a crucial task for fostering participation in online societal discussions. Current argument summarization approaches miss an important facet of this task -- capturing diversity -- which is important for accommodating multiple perspectives. We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis, which shows how these approaches struggle to (1) represent arguments shared by few people, (2) deal with data from various sources, and (3) align with subjectivity in human-provided annotations. We find that both general-purpose LLMs and dedicated KPA models exhibit this behavior, but have complementary strengths. Further, we observe that diversification of training data may ameliorate generalization. Addressing diversity in argument summarization requires a mix of strategies to deal with subjectivity.

Disagreements are common in online discussions. Disagreement may foster collaboration and improve the quality of a discussion under some conditions. Although there exist methods for recognizing disagreement, a deeper understanding of factors that influence disagreement is lacking in the literature. We investigate a hypothesis that differences in personal values are indicative of disagreement in online discussions. We show how state-of-the-art models can be used for estimating values in online discussions and how the estimated values can be aggregated into value profiles. We evaluate the estimated value profiles based on human-annotated agreement labels. We find that the dissimilarity of value profiles correlates with disagreement in specific cases. We also find that including value information in agreement prediction improves performance.