Gender-Based Violence (GBV) is an increasing problem online, but existing datasets fail to capture the plurality of possible annotator perspectives or ensure the representation of affected groups. We revisit two important stages in the moderation pipeline for GBV: (1) manual data labelling; and (2) automated classification. For (1), we examine two datasets to investigate the relationship between annotator identities and attitudes and the responses they give to two GBV labelling tasks. To this end, we collect demographic and attitudinal information from crowd-sourced annotators using three validated surveys from Social Psychology. We find that higher Right Wing Authoritarianism scores are associated with a higher propensity to label text as sexist, while for Social Dominance Orientation and Neosexist Attitudes, higher scores are associated with a negative tendency to do so.For (2), we conduct classification experiments using Large Language Models and five prompting strategies, including infusing prompts with annotator information. We find: (i) annotator attitudes affect the ability of classifiers to predict their labels; (ii) including attitudinal information can boost performance when we use well-structured brief annotator descriptions; and (iii) models struggle to reflect the increased complexity and imbalanced classes of the new label sets.

Growing awareness of a ‘Reproducibility Crisis’ in natural language processing (NLP) has focused on human evaluations of generative systems. While labelling for supervised classification tasks makes up a large part of human input to systems, the reproduction of such efforts has thus far not been been explored. In this paper, we re-implement a human data collection study for sentiment analysis of code-mixed Malayalam movie reviews, as well as automated classification experiments. We find that missing and under-specified information makes reproduction challenging, and we observe potentially consequential differences between the original labels and those we collect. Classification results indicate that the reliability of the labels is important for stable performance.

ReproHum is a large multi-institution project designed to examine the reproducibility of human evaluations of natural language processing. As part of the second phase of the project, we attempt to reproduce an evaluation of the fluency of continuations generated by a pre-trained language model compared to a range of baselines. Working within the constraints of the project, with limited information about the original study, and without access to their participant pool, or the responses of individual participants, we find that we are not able to reproduce the original results. Our participants display a greater tendency to prefer one of the system responses, avoiding a judgement of ‘equal fluency’ more than in the original study. We also conduct further evaluations: we elicit ratings from (1) a broader range of participants; (2) from the same participants at different times; and (3) with an altered definition of fluency. Results of these experiments suggest that the original evaluation collected too few ratings, and that the task formulation may be quite ambiguous. Overall, although we were able to conduct a re-evaluation study, we conclude that the original evaluation was not comprehensive enough to make truly meaningful comparisons

There are two competing approaches for modelling annotator disagreement: distributional soft-labelling approaches (which aim to capture the level of disagreement) or modelling perspectives of individual annotators or groups thereof. We adapt a multi-task architecture which has previously shown success in modelling perspectives to evaluate its performance on the SEMEVAL Task 11. We do so by combining both approaches, i.e. predicting individual annotator perspectives as an interim step towards predicting annotator disagreement. Despite its previous success, we found that a multi-task approach performed poorly on datasets which contained distinct annotator opinions, suggesting that this approach may not always be suitable when modelling perspectives. Furthermore, our results explain that while strongly perspectivist approaches might not achieve state-of-the-art performance according to evaluation metrics used by distributional approaches, our approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of individual perspectives present in the data. We argue that perspectivist approaches are preferable because they enable decision makers to amplify minority views, and that it is important to re-evaluate metrics to reflect this goal.

We demonstrate an embodied conversational agent that can function as a receptionist and generate a mixture of open and closed-domain dialogue along with facial expressions, by using a large language model (LLM) to develop an engaging conversation. We deployed the system onto a Furhat robot, which is highly expressive and capable of using both verbal and nonverbal cues during interaction. The system was designed specifically for the National Robotarium to interact with visitors through natural conversations, providing them with information about the facilities, research, news, upcoming events, etc. The system utilises the state-of-the-art GPT-3.5 model to generate such information along with domain-general conversations and facial expressions based on prompt engineering.

Automated dialogue or conversational systems are anthropomorphised by developers and personified by users. While a degree of anthropomorphism is inevitable, conscious and unconscious design choices can guide users to personify them to varying degrees. Encouraging users to relate to automated systems as if they were human can lead to transparency and trust issues, and high risk scenarios caused by over-reliance on their outputs. As a result, natural language processing researchers have investigated the factors that induce personification and develop resources to mitigate such effects. However, these efforts are fragmented, and many aspects of anthropomorphism have yet to be explored. In this paper, we discuss the linguistic factors that contribute to the anthropomorphism of dialogue systems and the harms that can arise thereof, including reinforcing gender stereotypes and conceptions of acceptable language. We recommend that future efforts towards developing dialogue systems take particular care in their design, development, release, and description; and attend to the many linguistic cues that can elicit personification by users.

We report our efforts in identifying a set of previous human evaluations in NLP that would be suitable for a coordinated study examining what makes human evaluations in NLP more/less reproducible. We present our results and findings, which include that just 13% of papers had (i) sufficiently low barriers to reproduction, and (ii) enough obtainable information, to be considered for reproduction, and that all but one of the experiments we selected for reproduction was discovered to have flaws that made the meaningfulness of conducting a reproduction questionable. As a result, we had to change our coordinated study design from a reproduce approach to a standardise-then-reproduce-twice approach. Our overall (negative) finding that the great majority of human evaluations in NLP is not repeatable and/or not reproducible and/or too flawed to justify reproduction, paints a dire picture, but presents an opportunity for a rethink about how to design and report human evaluations in NLP.

In this position paper, I will present the research interests in my PostDoc on safety and robustness specific to conversational AI, including then relevant overlap from my PhD.

While being an essential component of spoken language, fillers (e.g. “um” or “uh”) often remain overlooked in Spoken Language Understanding (SLU) tasks. We explore the possibility of representing them with deep contextualised embeddings, showing improvements on modelling spoken language and two downstream tasks — predicting a speaker’s stance and expressed confidence.