We explore a strategy to handle controversial topics in LLM-based chatbots based on Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) principle: acknowledge the absence of a single true answer and surface multiple perspectives. We frame this as retrieval augmented generation, where perspectives are retrieved from a knowledge base and the LLM is tasked with generating a fluent and faithful response from the given perspectives. As a starting point, we use a deterministic retrieval system and then focus on common LLM failure modes that arise during this approach to text generation, namely hallucination and coverage errors. We propose and evaluate three methods to detect such errors based on (1) word-overlap, (2) salience, and (3) LLM-based classifiers. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based classifiers, even when trained only on synthetic errors, achieve high error detection performance, with ROC AUC scores of 95.3% for hallucination and 90.5% for coverage error detection on unambiguous error cases. We show that when no training data is available, our other methods still yield good results on hallucination (84.0%) and coverage error (85.2%) detection.

Using pre-trained language models to implement classifiers from small to modest amounts of training data is an area of active research. The ability of large language models to generalize from few-shot examples and to produce strong classifiers is extended using the engineering approach of parameter-efficient tuning. Using the Explainable Detection of Online Sexism (EDOS) training data and a small number of trainable weights to create a tuned prompt vector, a competitive model for this task was built, which was top-ranked in Subtask B.

Text-based safety classifiers are widely used for content moderation and increasingly to tune generative language model behavior - a topic of growing concern for the safety of digital assistants and chatbots. However, different policies require different classifiers, and safety policies themselves improve from iteration and adaptation. This paper introduces and evaluates methods for agile text classification, whereby classifiers are trained using small, targeted datasets that can be quickly developed for a particular policy. Experimenting with 7 datasets from three safety-related domains, comprising 15 annotation schemes, led to our key finding: prompt-tuning large language models, like PaLM 62B, with a labeled dataset of as few as 80 examples can achieve state-of-the-art performance. We argue that this enables a paradigm shift for text classification, especially for models supporting safer online discourse. Instead of collecting millions of examples to attempt to create universal safety classifiers over months or years, classifiers could be tuned using small datasets, created by individuals or small organizations, tailored for specific use cases, and iterated on and adapted in the time-span of a day.

The automated detection of harmful language has been of great importance for the online world, especially with the growing importance of social media and, consequently, polarisation. There are many open challenges to high quality detection of harmful text, from dataset creation to generalisable application, thus calling for more systematic studies. In this paper, we explore re-annotation as a means of examining the robustness of already existing labelled datasets, showing that, despite using alternative definitions, the inter-annotator agreement remains very inconsistent, highlighting the intrinsically subjective and variable nature of the task. In addition, we build automatic toxicity detectors using the existing datasets, with their original labels, and we evaluate them on our multi-definition and multi-source datasets. Surprisingly, while other studies show that hate speech detection models perform better on data that are derived from the same distribution as the training set, our analysis demonstrates this is not necessarily true.

Platforms that support online commentary, from social networks to news sites, are increasingly leveraging machine learning to assist their moderation efforts. But this process does not typically provide feedback to the author that would help them contribute according to the community guidelines. This is prohibitively time-consuming for human moderators to do, and computational approaches are still nascent. This work focuses on models that can help suggest rephrasings of toxic comments in a more civil manner. Inspired by recent progress in unpaired sequence-to-sequence tasks, a self-supervised learning model is introduced, called CAE-T5. CAE-T5 employs a pre-trained text-to-text transformer, which is fine tuned with a denoising and cyclic auto-encoder loss. Experimenting with the largest toxicity detection dataset to date (Civil Comments) our model generates sentences that are more fluent and better at preserving the initial content compared to earlier text style transfer systems which we compare with using several scoring systems and human evaluation.

Moderation is crucial to promoting healthy online discussions. Although several ‘toxicity’ detection datasets and models have been published, most of them ignore the context of the posts, implicitly assuming that comments may be judged independently. We investigate this assumption by focusing on two questions: (a) does context affect the human judgement, and (b) does conditioning on context improve performance of toxicity detection systems? We experiment with Wikipedia conversations, limiting the notion of context to the previous post in the thread and the discussion title. We find that context can both amplify or mitigate the perceived toxicity of posts. Moreover, a small but significant subset of manually labeled posts (5% in one of our experiments) end up having the opposite toxicity labels if the annotators are not provided with context. Surprisingly, we also find no evidence that context actually improves the performance of toxicity classifiers, having tried a range of classifiers and mechanisms to make them context aware. This points to the need for larger datasets of comments annotated in context. We make our code and data publicly available.

We present a new dataset of approximately 44000 comments labeled by crowdworkers. Each comment is labelled as either ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’, in addition to binary labels for the presence of six potentially ‘unhealthy’ sub-attributes: (1) hostile; (2) antagonistic, insulting, provocative or trolling; (3) dismissive; (4) condescending or patronising; (5) sarcastic; and/or (6) an unfair generalisation. Each label also has an associated confidence score. We argue that there is a need for datasets which enable research based on a broad notion of ‘unhealthy online conversation’. We build this typology to encompass a substantial proportion of the individual comments which contribute to unhealthy online conversation. For some of these attributes, this is the first publicly available dataset of this scale. We explore the quality of the dataset, present some summary statistics and initial models to illustrate the utility of this data, and highlight limitations and directions for further research.

This paper presents the application of two strong baseline systems for toxicity detection and evaluates their performance in identifying and categorizing offensive language in social media. PERSPECTIVE is an API, that serves multiple machine learning models for the improvement of conversations online, as well as a toxicity detection system, trained on a wide variety of comments from platforms across the Internet. BERT is a recently popular language representation model, fine tuned per task and achieving state of the art performance in multiple NLP tasks. PERSPECTIVE performed better than BERT in detecting toxicity, but BERT was much better in categorizing the offensive type. Both baselines were ranked surprisingly high in the SEMEVAL-2019 OFFENSEVAL competition, PERSPECTIVE in detecting an offensive post (12th) and BERT in categorizing it (11th). The main contribution of this paper is the assessment of two strong baselines for the identification (PERSPECTIVE) and the categorization (BERT) of offensive language with little or no additional training data.

One of the main challenges online social systems face is the prevalence of antisocial behavior, such as harassment and personal attacks. In this work, we introduce the task of predicting from the very start of a conversation whether it will get out of hand. As opposed to detecting undesirable behavior after the fact, this task aims to enable early, actionable prediction at a time when the conversation might still be salvaged. To this end, we develop a framework for capturing pragmatic devices—such as politeness strategies and rhetorical prompts—used to start a conversation, and analyze their relation to its future trajectory. Applying this framework in a controlled setting, we demonstrate the feasibility of detecting early warning signs of antisocial behavior in online discussions.

We present a corpus that encompasses the complete history of conversations between contributors to Wikipedia, one of the largest online collaborative communities. By recording the intermediate states of conversations - including not only comments and replies, but also their modifications, deletions and restorations - this data offers an unprecedented view of online conversation. Our framework is designed to be language agnostic, and we show that it extracts high quality data in both Chinese and English. This level of detail supports new research questions pertaining to the process (and challenges) of large-scale online collaboration. We illustrate the corpus’ potential with two case studies on English Wikipedia that highlight new perspectives on earlier work. First, we explore how a person’s conversational behavior depends on how they relate to the discussion’s venue. Second, we show that community moderation of toxic behavior happens at a higher rate than previously estimated.