Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA) involves extracting opinions from textual data about specific entities and their corresponding aspects through various complementary subtasks. Several prior research has focused on developing ad hoc designs of varying complexities for these subtasks. In this paper, we build upon the instruction tuned model proposed by Scaria et al. (2023), who present an instruction-based model with task descriptions followed by in-context examples on ABSA subtasks. We propose PFInstruct, an extension to this instruction learning paradigm by appending an NLP-related task prefix to the task description. This simple approach leads to improved performance across all tested SemEval subtasks, surpassing previous state-of-the-art (SOTA) on the ATE subtask (Rest14) by +3.28 F1-score, and on the AOOE subtask by an average of +5.43 F1-score across SemEval datasets. Furthermore, we explore the impact of the prefix-enhanced prompt quality on the ABSA subtasks and find that even a noisy prefix enhances model performance compared to the baseline. Our method also achieves competitive results on a biomedical domain dataset (ERSA).

Detecting offensive language is a challenging task. Generalizing across different cultures and languages becomes even more challenging: besides lexical, syntactic and semantic differences, pragmatic aspects such as cultural norms and sensitivities, which are particularly relevant in this context, vary greatly. In this paper, we target Chinese offensive language detection and aim to investigate the impact of transfer learning using offensive language detection data from different cultural backgrounds, specifically Korean and English. We find that culture-specific biases in what is considered offensive negatively impact the transferability of language models (LMs) and that LMs trained on diverse cultural data are sensitive to different features in Chinese offensive language detection. In a few-shot learning scenario, however, our study shows promising prospects for non-English offensive language detection with limited resources. Our findings highlight the importance of cross-cultural transfer learning in improving offensive language detection and promoting inclusive digital spaces.

The recent release of ChatGPT has garnered widespread recognition for its exceptional ability to generate human-like conversations. Given its usage by users from various nations and its training on a vast multilingual corpus that includes diverse cultural and societal norms, it is crucial to evaluate its effectiveness in cultural adaptation. In this paper, we investigate the underlying cultural background of ChatGPT by analyzing its responses to questions designed to quantify human cultural differences. Our findings suggest that, when prompted with American context, ChatGPT exhibits a strong alignment with American culture, but it adapts less effectively to other cultural contexts. Furthermore, by using different prompts to probe the model, we show that English prompts reduce the variance in model responses, flattening out cultural differences and biasing them towards American culture. This study provides valuable insights into the cultural implications of ChatGPT and highlights the necessity of greater diversity and cultural awareness in language technologies.

Contrastive explanations, where one decision is explained *in contrast to another*, are supposed to be closer to how humans explain a decision than non-contrastive explanations, where the decision is not necessarily referenced to an alternative. This claim has never been empirically validated. We analyze four English text-classification datasets (SST2, DynaSent, BIOS and DBpedia-Animals). We fine-tune and extract explanations from three different models (RoBERTa, GTP-2, and T5), each in three different sizes and apply three post-hoc explainability methods (LRP, GradientxInput, GradNorm). We furthermore collect and release human rationale annotations for a subset of 100 samples from the BIOS dataset for contrastive and non-contrastive settings. A cross-comparison between model-based rationales and human annotations, both in contrastive and non-contrastive settings, yields a high agreement between the two settings for models as well as for humans. Moreover, model-based explanations computed in both settings align equally well with human rationales. Thus, we empirically find that humans do not necessarily explain in a contrastive manner.

Pretrained machine learning models are known to perpetuate and even amplify existing biases in data, which can result in unfair outcomes that ultimately impact user experience. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the mechanisms behind those prejudicial biases to ensure that model performance does not result in discriminatory behaviour toward certain groups or populations. In this work, we define gender bias as our case study. We quantify bias amplification in pretraining and after fine-tuning on three families of vision-and-language models. We investigate the connection, if any, between the two learning stages, and evaluate how bias amplification reflects on model performance. Overall, we find that bias amplification in pretraining and after fine-tuning are independent. We then examine the effect of continued pretraining on gender-neutral data, finding that this reduces group disparities, i.e., promotes fairness, on VQAv2 and retrieval tasks without significantly compromising task performance.

Explainability methods are used to benchmark the extent to which model predictions align with human rationales i.e., are ‘right for the right reasons’. Previous work has failed to acknowledge, however, that what counts as a rationale is sometimes subjective. This paper presents what we think is a first of its kind, a collection of human rationale annotations augmented with the annotators demographic information. We cover three datasets spanning sentiment analysis and common-sense reasoning, and six demographic groups (balanced across age and ethnicity). Such data enables us to ask both what demographics our predictions align with and whose reasoning patterns our models’ rationales align with. We find systematic inter-group annotator disagreement and show how 16 Transformer-based models align better with rationales provided by certain demographic groups: We find that models are biased towards aligning best with older and/or white annotators. We zoom in on the effects of model size and model distillation, finding –contrary to our expectations– negative correlations between model size and rationale agreement as well as no evidence that either model size or model distillation improves fairness.