Handling Disagreement in Hate Speech Modelling

Hate speech annotation for training machine learning models is an inherently ambiguous and subjective task. In this paper, we adopt a perspectivist approach to data annotation, model training and evaluation for hate speech classification. We first focus on the annotation process and argue that it dr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCommunications in computer and information science Vol. 1602; pp. 681 - 695
Main Authors Kralj Novak, Petra, Scantamburlo, Teresa, Pelicon, Andraž, Cinelli, Matteo, Mozetič, Igor, Zollo, Fabiana
Format Book Chapter
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland Springer International Publishing AG 2022
Springer International Publishing
SeriesCommunications in Computer and Information Science
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISBN9783031089732
3031089731
ISSN1865-0929
1865-0937
1865-0937
DOI10.1007/978-3-031-08974-9_54

Cover

More Information
Summary:Hate speech annotation for training machine learning models is an inherently ambiguous and subjective task. In this paper, we adopt a perspectivist approach to data annotation, model training and evaluation for hate speech classification. We first focus on the annotation process and argue that it drastically influences the final data quality. We then present three large hate speech datasets that incorporate annotator disagreement and use them to train and evaluate machine learning models. As the main point, we propose to evaluate machine learning models through the lens of disagreement by applying proper performance measures to evaluate both annotators’ agreement and models’ quality. We further argue that annotator agreement poses intrinsic limits to the performance achievable by models. When comparing models and annotators, we observed that they achieve consistent levels of agreement across datasets. We reflect upon our results and propose some methodological and ethical considerations that can stimulate the ongoing discussion on hate speech modelling and classification with disagreement.
Bibliography:The authors acknowledge financial support from the EU REC Programme (2014–2020) project IMSyPP (grant no. 875263), the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding no. P2-103), and from the project “IRIS: Global Health Security Academic Research Coalition”.
ISBN:9783031089732
3031089731
ISSN:1865-0929
1865-0937
1865-0937
DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-08974-9_54