Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Waseem, Z

A Survey of Race, Racism, and Anti-Racism in NLP

Authors: Anjalie Field, Su Lin Blodgett, Zeerak Waseem, Yulia Tsvetkov

Abstract: Despite inextricable ties between race and language, little work has considered race in NLP research and development. In this work, we survey 79 papers from the ACL anthology that mention race. These papers reveal various types of race-related bias in all stages of NLP model development, highlighting the need for proactive consideration of how NLP systems can uphold racial hierarchies. However, pe… ▽ More Despite inextricable ties between race and language, little work has considered race in NLP research and development. In this work, we survey 79 papers from the ACL anthology that mention race. These papers reveal various types of race-related bias in all stages of NLP model development, highlighting the need for proactive consideration of how NLP systems can uphold racial hierarchies. However, persistent gaps in research on race and NLP remain: race has been siloed as a niche topic and remains ignored in many NLP tasks; most work operationalizes race as a fixed single-dimensional variable with a ground-truth label, which risks reinforcing differences produced by historical racism; and the voices of historically marginalized people are nearly absent in NLP literature. By identifying where and how NLP literature has and has not considered race, especially in comparison to related fields, our work calls for inclusion and racial justice in NLP research practices. △ Less

Submitted 15 July, 2021; v1 submitted 21 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.

Comments: Accepted to ACL 2021

Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLP

Authors: Douwe Kiela, Max Bartolo, Yixin Nie, Divyansh Kaushik, Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Bertie Vidgen, Grusha Prasad, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, Zhiyi Ma, Tristan Thrush, Sebastian Riedel, Zeerak Waseem, Pontus Stenetorp, Robin Jia, Mohit Bansal, Christopher Potts, Adina Williams

Abstract: We introduce Dynabench, an open-source platform for dynamic dataset creation and model benchmarking. Dynabench runs in a web browser and supports human-and-model-in-the-loop dataset creation: annotators seek to create examples that a target model will misclassify, but that another person will not. In this paper, we argue that Dynabench addresses a critical need in our community: contemporary model… ▽ More We introduce Dynabench, an open-source platform for dynamic dataset creation and model benchmarking. Dynabench runs in a web browser and supports human-and-model-in-the-loop dataset creation: annotators seek to create examples that a target model will misclassify, but that another person will not. In this paper, we argue that Dynabench addresses a critical need in our community: contemporary models quickly achieve outstanding performance on benchmark tasks but nonetheless fail on simple challenge examples and falter in real-world scenarios. With Dynabench, dataset creation, model development, and model assessment can directly inform each other, leading to more robust and informative benchmarks. We report on four initial NLP tasks, illustrating these concepts and highlighting the promise of the platform, and address potential objections to dynamic benchmarking as a new standard for the field. △ Less

Submitted 7 April, 2021; originally announced April 2021.

Comments: NAACL 2021

Disembodied Machine Learning: On the Illusion of Objectivity in NLP

Authors: Zeerak Waseem, Smarika Lulz, Joachim Bingel, Isabelle Augenstein

Abstract: Machine Learning seeks to identify and encode bodies of knowledge within provided datasets. However, data encodes subjective content, which determines the possible outcomes of the models trained on it. Because such subjectivity enables marginalisation of parts of society, it is termed (social) `bias' and sought to be removed. In this paper, we contextualise this discourse of bias in the ML communi… ▽ More Machine Learning seeks to identify and encode bodies of knowledge within provided datasets. However, data encodes subjective content, which determines the possible outcomes of the models trained on it. Because such subjectivity enables marginalisation of parts of society, it is termed (social) `bias' and sought to be removed. In this paper, we contextualise this discourse of bias in the ML community against the subjective choices in the development process. Through a consideration of how choices in data and model development construct subjectivity, or biases that are represented in a model, we argue that addressing and mitigating biases is near-impossible. This is because both data and ML models are objects for which meaning is made in each step of the development pipeline, from data selection over annotation to model training and analysis. Accordingly, we find the prevalent discourse of bias limiting in its ability to address social marginalisation. We recommend to be conscientious of this, and to accept that de-biasing methods only correct for a fraction of biases. △ Less

Submitted 28 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

Comments: In review

Learning from the Worst: Dynamically Generated Datasets to Improve Online Hate Detection

Authors: Bertie Vidgen, Tristan Thrush, Zeerak Waseem, Douwe Kiela

Abstract: We present a human-and-model-in-the-loop process for dynamically generating datasets and training better performing and more robust hate detection models. We provide a new dataset of ~40,000 entries, generated and labelled by trained annotators over four rounds of dynamic data creation. It includes ~15,000 challenging perturbations and each hateful entry has fine-grained labels for the type and ta… ▽ More We present a human-and-model-in-the-loop process for dynamically generating datasets and training better performing and more robust hate detection models. We provide a new dataset of ~40,000 entries, generated and labelled by trained annotators over four rounds of dynamic data creation. It includes ~15,000 challenging perturbations and each hateful entry has fine-grained labels for the type and target of hate. Hateful entries make up 54% of the dataset, which is substantially higher than comparable datasets. We show that model performance is substantially improved using this approach. Models trained on later rounds of data collection perform better on test sets and are harder for annotators to trick. They also perform better on HateCheck, a suite of functional tests for online hate detection. We provide the code, dataset and annotation guidelines for other researchers to use. Accepted at ACL 2021. △ Less

Submitted 3 June, 2021; v1 submitted 31 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

HateCheck: Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection Models

Authors: Paul Röttger, Bertram Vidgen, Dong Nguyen, Zeerak Waseem, Helen Margetts, Janet B. Pierrehumbert

Abstract: Detecting online hate is a difficult task that even state-of-the-art models struggle with. Typically, hate speech detection models are evaluated by measuring their performance on held-out test data using metrics such as accuracy and F1 score. However, this approach makes it difficult to identify specific model weak points. It also risks overestimating generalisable model performance due to increas… ▽ More Detecting online hate is a difficult task that even state-of-the-art models struggle with. Typically, hate speech detection models are evaluated by measuring their performance on held-out test data using metrics such as accuracy and F1 score. However, this approach makes it difficult to identify specific model weak points. It also risks overestimating generalisable model performance due to increasingly well-evidenced systematic gaps and biases in hate speech datasets. To enable more targeted diagnostic insights, we introduce HateCheck, a suite of functional tests for hate speech detection models. We specify 29 model functionalities motivated by a review of previous research and a series of interviews with civil society stakeholders. We craft test cases for each functionality and validate their quality through a structured annotation process. To illustrate HateCheck's utility, we test near-state-of-the-art transformer models as well as two popular commercial models, revealing critical model weaknesses. △ Less

Submitted 27 May, 2021; v1 submitted 31 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: Accepted at ACL 2021 (Main Conference)

Detecting East Asian Prejudice on Social Media

Authors: Bertie Vidgen, Austin Botelho, David Broniatowski, Ella Guest, Matthew Hall, Helen Margetts, Rebekah Tromble, Zeerak Waseem, Scott Hale

Abstract: The outbreak of COVID-19 has transformed societies across the world as governments tackle the health, economic and social costs of the pandemic. It has also raised concerns about the spread of hateful language and prejudice online, especially hostility directed against East Asia. In this paper we report on the creation of a classifier that detects and categorizes social media posts from Twitter in… ▽ More The outbreak of COVID-19 has transformed societies across the world as governments tackle the health, economic and social costs of the pandemic. It has also raised concerns about the spread of hateful language and prejudice online, especially hostility directed against East Asia. In this paper we report on the creation of a classifier that detects and categorizes social media posts from Twitter into four classes: Hostility against East Asia, Criticism of East Asia, Meta-discussions of East Asian prejudice and a neutral class. The classifier achieves an F1 score of 0.83 across all four classes. We provide our final model (coded in Python), as well as a new 20,000 tweet training dataset used to make the classifier, two analyses of hashtags associated with East Asian prejudice and the annotation codebook. The classifier can be implemented by other researchers, assisting with both online content moderation processes and further research into the dynamics, prevalence and impact of East Asian prejudice online during this global pandemic. △ Less

Submitted 8 May, 2020; originally announced May 2020.

Comments: 12 pages

Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtasks

Authors: Zeerak Waseem, Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, Ingmar Weber

Abstract: As the body of research on abusive language detection and analysis grows, there is a need for critical consideration of the relationships between different subtasks that have been grouped under this label. Based on work on hate speech, cyberbullying, and online abuse we propose a typology that captures central similarities and differences between subtasks and we discuss its implications for data a… ▽ More As the body of research on abusive language detection and analysis grows, there is a need for critical consideration of the relationships between different subtasks that have been grouped under this label. Based on work on hate speech, cyberbullying, and online abuse we propose a typology that captures central similarities and differences between subtasks and we discuss its implications for data annotation and feature construction. We emphasize the practical actions that can be taken by researchers to best approach their abusive language detection subtask of interest. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2017; v1 submitted 28 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

Comments: To appear in the proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Abusive Language Online. Please cite that version