Urja Khurana

The subjectivity of automatic hate speech detection makes it a complex task, reflected in different and incomplete definitions in NLP. We present hate speech criteria, developed with insights from a law and social science expert, that help researchers create more explicit definitions and annotation guidelines on five aspects: (1) target groups and (2) dominance, (3) perpetrator characteristics, (4) explicit presence of negative interactions, and the (5) type of consequences/effects. Definitions can be structured so that they cover a more broad or more narrow phenomenon and conscious choices can be made on specifying criteria or leaving them open. We argue that the goal and exact task developers have in mind should determine how the scope of hate speech is defined. We provide an overview of the properties of datasets from hatespeechdata.com that may help select the most suitable dataset for a specific scenario.

Despite their success, modern language models are fragile. Even small changes in their training pipeline can lead to unexpected results. We study this phenomenon by examining the robustness of ALBERT (Lan et al., 2020) in combination with Stochastic Weight Averaging (SWA)—a cheap way of ensembling—on a sentiment analysis task (SST-2). In particular, we analyze SWA’s stability via CheckList criteria (Ribeiro et al., 2020), examining the agreement on errors made by models differing only in their random seed. We hypothesize that SWA is more stable because it ensembles model snapshots taken along the gradient descent trajectory. We quantify stability by comparing the models’ mistakes with Fleiss’ Kappa (Fleiss, 1971) and overlap ratio scores. We find that SWA reduces error rates in general; yet the models still suffer from their own distinct biases (according to CheckList).