This paper proposes AEDA (An Easier Data Augmentation) technique to help improve the performance on text classification tasks. AEDA includes only random insertion of punctuation marks into the original text. This is an easier technique to implement for data augmentation than EDA method (Wei and Zou, 2019) with which we compare our results. In addition, it keeps the order of the words while changing their positions in the sentence leading to a better generalized performance. Furthermore, the deletion operation in EDA can cause loss of information which, in turn, misleads the network, whereas AEDA preserves all the input information. Following the baseline, we perform experiments on five different datasets for text classification. We show that using the AEDA-augmented data for training, the models show superior performance compared to using the EDA-augmented data in all five datasets. The source code will be made available for further study and reproduction of the results.
UniParma at SemEval-2021 Task 5: Toxic Spans Detection Using CharacterBERT and Bag-of-Words Model
Akbar Karimi | Leonardo Rossi | Andrea Prati
Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2021)
With the ever-increasing availability of digital information, toxic content is also on the rise. Therefore, the detection of this type of language is of paramount importance. We tackle this problem utilizing a combination of a state-of-the-art pre-trained language model (CharacterBERT) and a traditional bag-of-words technique. Since the content is full of toxic words that have not been written according to their dictionary spelling, attendance to individual characters is crucial. Therefore, we use CharacterBERT to extract features based on the word characters. It consists of a CharacterCNN module that learns character embeddings from the context. These are, then, fed into the well-known BERT architecture. The bag-of-words method, on the other hand, further improves upon that by making sure that some frequently used toxic words get labeled accordingly. With a ∼4 percent difference from the first team, our system ranked 36 th in the competition. The code is available for further research and reproduction of the results.