Hate speech moderation on global platforms poses unique challenges due to the multimodal and multilingual nature of content, along with the varying cultural perceptions. How well do current vision-language models (VLMs) navigate these nuances? To investigate this, we create the first multimodal and multilingual parallel hate speech dataset, annotated by a multiculturally diverse set of annotators, called Multi³Hate. It contains 300 parallel meme samples across 5 languages: English, German, Spanish, Hindi, and Mandarin. We demonstrate that cultural background significantly affects multimodal hate speech annotation in our dataset. The average pairwise agreement among countries is just 74%, significantly lower than that of randomly selected annotator groups. Our qualitative analysis indicates that the lowest pairwise label agreement—only 67% between the USA and India—can be attributed to cultural factors. We then conduct experiments with 5 large VLMs in a zero-shot setting, finding that these models align more closely with annotations from the US than with those from other cultures, even when the memes and prompts are presented in the native language of the other culture.

In this paper, we present the four systems developed by the Meenzer team from JGU for the AmericasNLP 2024 shared task on the creation of educational materials for Indigenous languages. The task involves accurately applying specific grammatical modifications to given source sentences across three low-resource Indigenous languages: Bribri, Guarani, and Maya. We train two types of model architectures: finetuning a sequence-to-sequence pointer-generator LSTM and finetuning the Mixtral 8x7B model by incorporating in-context examples into the training phase. System 1, an ensemble combining finetuned LSTMs, finetuned Mixtral models, and GPT-4, achieves the best performance on Guarani. Meanwhile, system 4, another ensemble consisting solely of fine-tuned Mixtral models, outperforms all other teams on Maya and secures the second place overall. Additionally, we conduct an ablation study to understand the performance of our system 4.

Compared to standard language model (LM) pretraining (i.e., from scratch), Knowledge Distillation (KD) entails an additional forward pass through a teacher model that is typically substantially larger than the target student model. As such, KD in LM pretraining materially slows down throughput of pretraining instances vis-a-vis pretraining from scratch. Scaling laws of LM pretraining suggest that smaller models can close the gap to larger counterparts if trained on more data (i.e., processing more tokens)—and under a fixed computation budget, smaller models are able to process more data than larger models. We thus hypothesize that KD might, in fact, be suboptimal to pretraining from scratch for obtaining smaller LMs, when appropriately accounting for the compute budget. To test this, we compare pretraining from scratch against several KD strategies for masked language modeling (MLM) in a fair experimental setup, with respect to amount of computation as well as pretraining data. Downstream results on GLUE, however, do not confirm our hypothesis: while pretraining from scratch performs comparably to ordinary KD under a fixed computation budget, more sophisticated KD strategies, namely TinyBERT and MiniLM, outperform it by a notable margin. We further find that KD yields larger gains over pretraining from scratch when the data can be repeated under the fixed computation budget.

Current natural language processing (NLP) research tends to focus on only one or, less frequently, two dimensions – e.g., performance, interpretability, or efficiency – at a time, which may lead to suboptimal conclusions. Work on adapter modulesfocuses on improving performance and efficiency, with no investigation of unintended consequences on other aspects such as fairness. To address this gap, we conduct experiments on three text classification datasets by either (1) finetuning all parameters or (2) using adapter modules. Regarding performance and efficiency, we confirm prior findings that the accuracy of adapter-enhanced models is roughly on par with that of fully finetuned models, while training time is substantially reduced. Regarding fairness, we show that adapter modules result in mixed fairness across sensitive groups. Further investigation reveals that, when the standard finetuned model exhibits limited biases, adapter modules typically do not introduce extra bias. On the other hand, when the finetuned model exhibits increased bias, the use of adapter modules poses the potential danger of amplifying these biases to a significant extent. Our findings highlight the need for a case-by-case evaluation rather than a one-size-fits-all judgment.