skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Abusive Language Detection in Heterogeneous Contexts: Dataset Collection and the Role of Supervised Attention
Abusive language is a massive problem in online social platforms. Existing abusive language detection techniques are particularly ill-suited to comments containing heterogeneous abusive language patterns, i.e., both abusive and non-abusive parts. This is due in part to the lack of datasets that explicitly annotate heterogeneity in abusive language. We tackle this challenge by providing an annotated dataset of abusive language in over 11,000 comments from YouTube. We account for heterogeneity in this dataset by separately annotating both the comment as a whole and the individual sentences that comprise each comment. We then propose an algorithm that uses a supervised attention mechanism to detect and categorize abusive content using multi-task learning. We empirically demonstrate the challenges of using traditional techniques on heterogeneous content and the comparative gains in performance of the proposed approach over state-of-the-art methods.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1720268
PAR ID:
10292053
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Volume:
35
Issue:
17
Page Range / eLocation ID:
14804-14812
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media)
    Budak, Ceren; Cha, Meeyoung; Quercia, Daniele; Xie, Lexing (Ed.)
    We present the first large-scale measurement study of cross-partisan discussions between liberals and conservatives on YouTube, based on a dataset of 274,241 political videos from 973 channels of US partisan media and 134M comments from 9.3M users over eight months in 2020. Contrary to a simple narrative of echo chambers, we find a surprising amount of cross-talk: most users with at least 10 comments posted at least once on both left-leaning and right-leaning YouTube channels. Cross-talk, however, was not symmetric. Based on the user leaning predicted by a hierarchical attention model, we find that conservatives were much more likely to comment on left-leaning videos than liberals on right-leaning videos. Secondly, YouTube's comment sorting algorithm made cross-partisan comments modestly less visible; for example, comments from conservatives made up 26.3% of all comments on left-leaning videos but just over 20% of the comments were in the top 20 positions. Lastly, using Perspective API's toxicity score as a measure of quality, we find that conservatives were not significantly more toxic than liberals when users directly commented on the content of videos. However, when users replied to comments from other users, we find that cross-partisan replies were more toxic than co-partisan replies on both left-leaning and right-leaning videos, with cross-partisan replies being especially toxic on the replier's home turf. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; (, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, Association for Computational Linguistics)
    The variations between in-group and out-group speech (intergroup bias) are subtle and could underlie many social phenomena like stereotype perpetuation and implicit bias. In this paper, we model intergroup bias as a tagging task on English sports comments from forums dedicated to fandom for NFL teams. We curate a dataset of over 6 million game-time comments from opposing perspectives (the teams in the game), each comment grounded in a non-linguistic description of the events that precipitated these comments (live win probabilities for each team). Expert and crowd annotations justify modeling the bias through tagging of implicit and explicit referring expressions and reveal the rich, contextual understanding of language and the world required for this task. For large-scale analysis of intergroup variation, we use LLMs for automated tagging, and discover that LLMs occasionally perform better when prompted with linguistic descriptions of the win probability at the time of the comment, rather than numerical probability. Further, large-scale tagging of comments using LLMs uncovers linear variations in the form of referent across win probabilities that distinguish in-group and out-group utterances. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI))
    Prior work and perception theory suggests that when exposed to discussion related to a particular piece of crowdsourced text content, readers generally perceive that content to be of lower quality than readers who do not see those comments, and that the effect is stronger if the comments display conflict. This paper presents a controlled experiment with over 1000 participants testing to see if this effect carries over to other documents from the same platform, including those with similar content or by the same author. Although we do generally find that perceived quality of the commented-on document is affected, effects do not carry over to the second item and readers are able to judge the second in isolation from the comment on the first. We confirm a prior finding about the negative effects conflict can have on perceived quality but note that readers report learning more from constructive conflict comments. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web and Social Media)
    Online antisocial behavior, such as cyberbullying, harassment, and trolling, is a widespread problem that threatens free discussion and has negative physical and mental health consequences for victims and communities. While prior work has proposed automated methods to identify hostile comments in online discussions, these methods work retrospectively on comments that have already been posted, making it difficult to intervene before an interaction escalates. In this paper we instead consider the problem of forecasting future hostilities in online discussions, which we decompose into two tasks: (1) given an initial sequence of non-hostile comments in a discussion, predict whether some future comment will contain hostility; and (2) given the first hostile comment in a discussion, predict whether this will lead to an escalation of hostility in subsequent comments. Thus, we aim to forecast both the presence and intensity of hostile comments based on linguistic and social features from earlier comments. To evaluate our approach, we introduce a corpus of over 30K annotated Instagram comments from over 1,100 posts. Our approach is able to predict the appearance of a hostile comment on an Instagram post ten or more hours in the future with an AUC of .82 (task 1), and can furthermore distinguish between high and low levels of future hostility with an AUC of .91 (task 2). 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; (, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology)
    High-quality source code comments are valuable for software development and maintenance, however, code often contains low-quality comments or lacks them altogether. We name such source code comments as suboptimal comments. Such suboptimal comments create challenges in code comprehension and maintenance. Despite substantial research on low-quality source code comments, empirical knowledge about commenting practices that produce suboptimal comments and reasons that lead to suboptimal comments are lacking. We help bridge this knowledge gap by investigating (1)  independent comment changes (ICCs) —comment changes committed independently of code changes—which likely address suboptimal comments, (2) commenting guidelines, and (3) comment-checking tools and comment-generating tools, which are often employed to help commenting practice—especially to prevent suboptimal comments. We collect 24M+ comment changes from 4,392 open-source GitHub Java repositories and find that ICCs widely exist. The ICC ratio —proportion of ICCs among all comment changes—is ~15.5%, with 98.7% of the repositories having ICC. Our thematic analysis of 3,533 randomly sampled ICCs provides a three-dimensional taxonomy for what is changed (four comment categories and 13 subcategories), how it changed (six commenting activity categories), and what factors are associated with the change (three factors). We investigate 600 repositories to understand the prevalence, content, impact, and violations of commenting guidelines. We find that only 15.5% of the 600 sampled repositories have any commenting guidelines. We provide the first taxonomy for elements in commenting guidelines: where and what to comment are particularly important. The repositories without such guidelines have a statistically significantly higher ICC ratio, indicating the negative impact of the lack of commenting guidelines. However, commenting guidelines are not strictly followed: 85.5% of checked repositories have violations. We also systematically study how developers use two kinds of tools, comment-checking tools and comment-generating tools, in the 4,392 repositories. We find that the use of Javadoc tool is negatively correlated with the ICC ratio, while the use of Checkstyle has no statistically significant correlation; the use of comment-generating tools leads to a higher ICC ratio. To conclude, we reveal issues and challenges in current commenting practice, which help understand how suboptimal comments are introduced. We propose potential research directions on comment location prediction, comment generation, and comment quality assessment; suggest how developers can formulate commenting guidelines and enforce rules with tools; and recommend how to enhance current comment-checking and comment-generating tools. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email