Recent research in opinion mining proposed word embedding-based topic modeling methods that provide superior coherence compared to traditional topic modeling. In this paper, we demonstrate how these methods can be used to display correlated topic models on social media texts using SocialVisTUM, our proposed interactive visualization toolkit. It displays a graph with topics as nodes and their correlations as edges. Further details are displayed interactively to support the exploration of large text collections, e.g., representative words and sentences of topics, topic and sentiment distributions, hierarchical topic clustering, and customizable, predefined topic labels. The toolkit optimizes automatically on custom data for optimal coherence. We show a working instance of the toolkit on data crawled from English social media discussions about organic food consumption. The visualization confirms findings of a qualitative consumer research study. SocialVisTUM and its training procedures are accessible online.

Nowadays, social media platforms use classification models to cope with hate speech and abusive language. The problem of these models is their vulnerability to bias. A prevalent form of bias in hate speech and abusive language datasets is annotator bias caused by the annotator’s subjective perception and the complexity of the annotation task. In our paper, we develop a set of methods to measure annotator bias in abusive language datasets and to identify different perspectives on abusive language. We apply these methods to four different abusive language datasets. Our proposed approach supports annotation processes of such datasets and future research addressing different perspectives on the perception of abusive language.

As hate speech spreads on social media and online communities, research continues to work on its automatic detection. Recently, recognition performance has been increasing thanks to advances in deep learning and the integration of user features. This work investigates the effects that such features can have on a detection model. Unlike previous research, we show that simple performance comparison does not expose the full impact of including contextual- and user information. By leveraging explainability techniques, we show (1) that user features play a role in the model’s decision and (2) how they affect the feature space learned by the model. Besides revealing that—and also illustrating why—user features are the reason for performance gains, we show how such techniques can be combined to better understand the model and to detect unintended bias.

One challenge that social media platforms are facing nowadays is hate speech. Hence, automatic hate speech detection has been increasingly researched in recent years - in particular with the rise of deep learning. A problem of these models is their vulnerability to undesirable bias in training data. We investigate the impact of political bias on hate speech classification by constructing three politically-biased data sets (left-wing, right-wing, politically neutral) and compare the performance of classifiers trained on them. We show that (1) political bias negatively impairs the performance of hate speech classifiers and (2) an explainable machine learning model can help to visualize such bias within the training data. The results show that political bias in training data has an impact on hate speech classification and can become a serious issue.

Machine learning is recently used to detect hate speech and other forms of abusive language in online platforms. However, a notable weakness of machine learning models is their vulnerability to bias, which can impair their performance and fairness. One type is annotator bias caused by the subjective perception of the annotators. In this work, we investigate annotator bias using classification models trained on data from demographically distinct annotator groups. To do so, we sample balanced subsets of data that are labeled by demographically distinct annotators. We then train classifiers on these subsets, analyze their performances on similarly grouped test sets, and compare them statistically. Our findings show that the proposed approach successfully identifies bias and that demographic features, such as first language, age, and education, correlate with significant performance differences.

A challenge that many online platforms face is hate speech or any other form of online abuse. To cope with this, hate speech detection systems are developed based on machine learning to reduce manual work for monitoring these platforms. Unfortunately, machine learning is vulnerable to unintended bias in training data, which could have severe consequences, such as a decrease in classification performance or unfair behavior (e.g., discriminating minorities). In the scope of this study, we want to investigate annotator bias — a form of bias that annotators cause due to different knowledge in regards to the task and their subjective perception. Our goal is to identify annotation bias based on similarities in the annotation behavior from annotators. To do so, we build a graph based on the annotations from the different annotators, apply a community detection algorithm to group the annotators, and train for each group classifiers whose performances we compare. By doing so, we are able to identify annotator bias within a data set. The proposed method and collected insights can contribute to developing fairer and more reliable hate speech classification models.

A major challenge in modern neural networks is the utilization of previous knowledge for new tasks in an effective manner, otherwise known as transfer learning. Fine-tuning, the most widely used method for achieving this, suffers from catastrophic forgetting. The problem is often exacerbated in natural language processing (NLP). In this work, we assess progressive neural networks (PNNs) as an alternative to fine-tuning. The evaluation is based on common NLP tasks such as sequence labeling and text classification. By gauging PNNs across a range of architectures, datasets, and tasks, we observe improvements over the baselines throughout all experiments.

With the explosive growth in textual data, it is becoming increasingly important to summarize text automatically. Recently, generative language models have shown promise in abstractive text summarization tasks. Since these models rephrase text and thus use similar but different words as found in the summarized text, existing metrics such as ROUGE that use n-gram overlap may not be optimal. Therefore we evaluate two embedding-based evaluation metrics that are applicable to abstractive summarization: Fr ́echet embedding distance, which has been introduced recently, and angular embedding similarity, which is our proposed metric. To demonstrate the utility of both metrics, we analyze the headline generation capacity of two state-of-the-art language models: GPT-2 and ULMFiT. In particular, our proposed metric shows close relation with human judgments in our experiments and has overall better correlations with them. To provide reproducibility, the source code plus human assessments of our experiments is available on GitHub.