Diagnosing Hate Speech Classification: Where Do Humans and Machines Disagree, and Why?
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866913585777606656 |
|---|---|
| author | Yang, Xilin |
| author_facet | Yang, Xilin |
| contents | This study uses the cosine similarity ratio, embedding regression, and manual re-annotation to diagnose hate speech classification. We begin by computing cosine similarity ratio on a dataset "Measuring Hate Speech" that contains 135,556 annotated comments on social media. This way, we show a basic use of cosine similarity as a description of hate speech content. We then diagnose hate speech classification starting from understanding the inconsistency of human annotation from the dataset. Using embedding regression as a basic diagnostic, we found that female annotators are more sensitive to racial slurs that target the black population. We perform with a more complicated diagnostic by training a hate speech classifier using a SoTA pre-trained large language model, NV-Embed-v2, to convert texts to embeddings and run a logistic regression. This classifier achieves a testing accuracy of 94%. In diagnosing where machines disagree with human annotators, we found that machines make fewer mistakes than humans despite the fact that human annotations are treated as ground truth in the training set. Machines perform better in correctly labeling long statements of facts, but perform worse in labeling short instances of swear words. We hypothesize that this is due to model alignment - while curating models at their creation prevents the models from producing obvious hate speech, it also reduces the model's ability to detect such content. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2410_10153 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Diagnosing Hate Speech Classification: Where Do Humans and Machines Disagree, and Why? Yang, Xilin Computation and Language Computers and Society Machine Learning This study uses the cosine similarity ratio, embedding regression, and manual re-annotation to diagnose hate speech classification. We begin by computing cosine similarity ratio on a dataset "Measuring Hate Speech" that contains 135,556 annotated comments on social media. This way, we show a basic use of cosine similarity as a description of hate speech content. We then diagnose hate speech classification starting from understanding the inconsistency of human annotation from the dataset. Using embedding regression as a basic diagnostic, we found that female annotators are more sensitive to racial slurs that target the black population. We perform with a more complicated diagnostic by training a hate speech classifier using a SoTA pre-trained large language model, NV-Embed-v2, to convert texts to embeddings and run a logistic regression. This classifier achieves a testing accuracy of 94%. In diagnosing where machines disagree with human annotators, we found that machines make fewer mistakes than humans despite the fact that human annotations are treated as ground truth in the training set. Machines perform better in correctly labeling long statements of facts, but perform worse in labeling short instances of swear words. We hypothesize that this is due to model alignment - while curating models at their creation prevents the models from producing obvious hate speech, it also reduces the model's ability to detect such content. |
| title | Diagnosing Hate Speech Classification: Where Do Humans and Machines Disagree, and Why? |
| topic | Computation and Language Computers and Society Machine Learning |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10153 |