Integrating linguistic knowledge into DNNs: Application to online grooming detection
Authors: Jay Morgan
Adeline Paiement
Nuria Lorenzo-Dus
Anina Kinzel
Matteo Di Cristofaro
Venue:  (2021)
Keywords: Machine Learning
Corpus Linguistics

Abstract: Online grooming (OG) of children is a pervasive issue in an increasingly interconnected world. We explore various complementary methods to incorporate Corpus Linguistics (CL) knowledge into accurate and interpretable Deep Learning (DL) models. They provide an implicit text normalisation that adapts embedding spaces to the groomers' usage of language, and they focus the DNN's attention onto the expressions of OG strategies. We apply these integration to two architecture types and improve on the state-of-the-art on a new OG corpus.

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
INTEGRATING LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE INTO DNNS:
APPLICATION TO ONLINE GROOMING DETECTION
Anonymous authors Paper under double-bling review
ABSTRACT
Online grooming (OG) of children is pervasive issue in an increasingly intercon- nected world. We explore various complementary methods to incorporate Corpus Linguisties (CL) knowledge into accurate and interpretable Deep Learning (DL) models. They provide an implicit text normalisation that adapts embedding spaces to the groomers' usage of language, and they focus the DNN's attention onto the expressions of OG strategies. We apply these integrations to two architecture types and improve on the state-of-the-art on new OG corpus.
INTRODUCTION
Online grooming (OG) is communicative process of entrapment in which adult lures a minor into taking part in sexual activities online and, at times, offline (Lorenzo-Dus et al. 2016 Chiang & Grant 2019). Our aim is to detect instances of OG. This is achieved through binary classification of whole conversations into OG (positive class) or neutral (negative class). This classification requires
the ability capture subtleties in the language used by groomers. Corpus Linguistic (CL.) analysis provides a detailed characterisation of language in large textual datasets (McEnery & Wilson| 2003)
Sinclair 199I). We argue that, when integrated into ML models, the products of CL analysis may allow a better capture of language subtleties, while simplifying and guiding the learning task. We consider two types of CL products and explore strategies for their integration into several stages of DNNs. Moreover, we show that CL knowledge may help law enforcement in interpreting the ML decision process, towards the production of evidences for potential prosecution.
Our text heavily uses slang and sms-style writing, many real-world Natural Language Processing (NIP) tasks for chat logs. Text normalisation methods were proposed reduce variance word choice and/or spelling and simplify learning, e.g. (Mansfield et al.) 2019) for sms-style writing. However, they do not account for the final analysis goal and may discard some informative variance, e.g. the use of certain forms of slang possibly indicative of user category. CL analysis provides with the preferred usage of spelling variants or synonyms. We propose to use this domain knowledge to selectively normalise chat logs while preserving the informative variance for the classification task.
As demonstrated by the CL analysis in (orenzo- Dus et al. 2016). the theme and immediate purpose of groomer messages may vary throughout the conversation, in order achieve the overarching goal of entrapping the victims. Groomers use a series of inter-connected "sub-goals", referred to as OG processes here, namely gaining the child's trust, planning activities, building a relationship. isolating them emotionally and physically from his/her support network, checking their level of compliance, introducing sexual content and trying to secure meeting off-line. The language used within these processes is not always sexually explicit, which makes their detection more challenging. However, CL analysis additionally flags some contexts associated the OG processes, in the form of word collocations (i.e. words that occur within same window of 7 words) that tend to occur more frequently in, and therefore can be associated with, OG processes. We propose to exploit the relations between the OG processes and their overarching goal of OG to improve the final OG classification. We use the CL identified context windows to guide the learning of our DNN.
Our main contributions are: 1) We explore different strategies for integrating CL knowledge into DNNs. They are applied to two architecture types and demonstrated on OG detection, but may generalise to other NLP applications that involve digital language and/or complex conversational strategies. 2) The principle and several implementations of selectively normalising text through modifying word embedding in support classification. 3) The decomposition of conversation

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
analysis into identifying sub-goals. Our DNN implicitly models the relations between these sub- uub-goals and the conversation's 's overarching final goal. 4) A new attention mechanism for LSTM based on the direct stimulation of its imput gates, with two proposed implementations. 5) A state-of-the- and interpretable OG detector. 6) A new corpus for OG detection, to be publicly released on demand, and that extends PAN2012 with more conversations and with products of CL analysis.
(SoTA)
RELATED WORK
Villatoro- Tello et al. (0112) detected OG chat logs using a DNN to classify binary bog-of-words.
This simple approach highlights the importance of commonly used words amongst groomers which
we exploit for selective text normalisation. This is emphasised in (Vartapetiance & Gillam 2014 Hidalgo & Diaz 2012) where set of phrases are derived from the important features of a Naive
Bayes classifier to describe common behaviours among groomers. [iu et al.] (2017) obtained the current OG detection SoTA using word embedding for semantic of important words and LSTM.
Integrating domain knowledge into DNNs is often done with additional losses that assist with sparse and low quality data. (Muralidhar et al. 2018) penalise a DNN's output violating logical rules w.r.t. the input features. (Hu et al.) 2018)) use the posterior regularisation framework of (Ganchev et al., 2010) encode domain constraints for generative models. teacher-student architecture in (Hu et al. 2016) incorporates first-order logic rules to create an additional loss for the student network. Other works integrated prior knowledge in the design of the DNN architecture. In NrainNetCNN (Kawahara et al.] 2017), the convolutions of convolutional neural network (CNN) are defined based on the graph data's locality to account for the brain's 's connectivity. The training procedure may also integrate priors without modifying the DNN's architecture. Derakhshani et al. (2019) use assisted excitation of CNN neurons in the images' areas of interest, thus providing both localisation and semantic information to the DNN. An attention mechanism was used in supervised way to focus a DNN on important words in [guyeen& & Nguyen 2018). We experiment with these various approaches and adapt them to our domain knowledge and DNN architectures.
Linguistic knowledge was integrated to learnt word embeddings in the past. Knowledge in the form of lexicons, that carry manual categorisation and/or ranking of words, is combined with learnt word embedding in (Margatina et al.] 2019). Three strategies are proposed, namely concatenating the lexicon and embedding features, and using the lexicon features to conditionally select or transform the word embeddings. In our study, we are concerned with a different type of linguistic knowledge. However, our modification of word embedding (Section 4.1 may also exploit this lexicon knowledge.
AUGMENTED PAN2012 DATASET
PAN2012 IInhhes& & Crestani 2012) is a standard corpus for OG detection. It was gathered from Omegle (one-to-one conversations, IRC (technical discussions in groups), and the Perverted Justice (PJ) website
[T (chat logs from convicted groomers interacting with trained adult decoys), with 396 groomers and 5700/ / 216,122 OG non-OG conversations. Some non-OG chat logs contain sexual wording, making the OG classification more challenging. Conversations are truncated to I 150 messages each, which limits both CL and ML analyses. To resolve this limitation, we augment the corpus with full OG conversations and the addition of new groomers from PJ, totalling 623 groomers in 6204 OG conversations (same negatives which could not be augmented to fuller conversations due to no access to the original data). Final OG / non-OG conversations total an average (std) of 215 (689) / 13 (23) messages and 1010 (3231) / 94 (489) words, respectively. Statisties on the dataset content are in the sup. materials. PJ data is freely available online and was largely used in previous social science and NLP studies, thus its use does not raise any peculiar ethical concern. For a debate on its usability see (Chiang & Grant 2019 Schneevogt et al. 2018).
Our dataset also includes the results of a CL analysis of the new corpus using the method described in (Lorenzo-Dur al. (016), which involves heavy use of manual analysis by CL experts. As part of data preparation for CL amalysis, word variants are identified, which are either spelling variations (mistakes intentional e.g. "loool">'ool or the same semantic meaning behind two terms (e.g. 'not comfy' > 'uncomfortable") These variants are not specific to OG, but rather reflect digital language,
http://pervertee justiiddj-ieeeee justice.cco
2

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
and are therefore valid for other real-world chat logs. The CL analysis also identified the variants that are most used among groomers. The CL products in our dataset include: 1) the set of variants both general and groomer- 2eeneerr-reerrdd.2 2) set of frequent 3 word collocates (not necessarily direct neighhours, but located within a window of 7 words) that are used among many different users, and 3) manual annotation of 2100 samples of OG processes (there are 7 types of OG processes, identified in (Lorenzo- Dus et al. 2016) and listed in the introduction and detailed in the sup. materials) that could be associated 3-word collocates and the context windows that these latter define. These CL products are sensitive data that might be used to help groomers refine their strategies, therefore they will only be shared on request. They are used in Sections to train a DNN model, but this model does not require CL. analysis to be performed at testing phase, as it takes raw text only as input.
4 METHODOLOGY
Overarching vision and general applicability- We integrate two CL priors into DNNs: the word variants and the identification of OG processes. Word variants provide knowledge of same semantic meaning, which allows reducing variance in the text. The knowledge of groomer's preferred variants brings an implicit and selective text normalisation that supports the classification task. It is achieved through reduction of distances between non-discriminative variants in word embedding. This selective normalisation is applicable to other classification tasks from real-world chat logs, provided an updated selection of the preferred and discriminative variants. As highlighted in Section [3] the variants reflect digital language and are relevant to different analyses of chat conversations. The selection of discriminative variants is done easily and automatically following a procedure described in Section 4.1 Juiing empirical occurrences in positive and negative conversations. This knowledge integration is also applicable to all DNNs that use a word embedding to capture word semantic.
The use of OG processes aides in differentiating between causal conversations involving sexual language, and OG conversations with complex strategies and sub-goals (i.e. OG processes). The language associated to OG processes, reflected by the 3-word collocates and context windows that they define, may be more informative than traditionally used simple sexual wording in making this distinction. We propose 3 strategies to integrate this knowledge, namely the definition of sub-tasks and two stimulations of DNN attention. They all guide the learning by providing focus on contexts of interest (a valuable complement attention mechanisms, as demonstrated in our experiments), and by implicitly modelling the relation between sub- and final goals. This CL knowledge integration principle is generally applicable to the analysis of complex conversations, provided an appropriate CL identification of the conversation's 's sub-goals and of their associated language through context windows. This identification of sub-goals has been the focus of many social science studies. For example, large corpus of works have identified strategies for persuasion and manipulation in extreme ideology groups, e.g. (Brindle 2016: Nouri Lorenzo- Dus| 2019; Lorenzo-Dus & Nouri 2020)) Saridakis & Mouka 2020) for radical right hate speech and (Baker et al. 2021) for jihadi radicalisation. This established baseline of knowledge may be integrated into DNNs in multdisscipinnay works. The identification of frequent 3-word collocates is automated, as described in (Lorenzo- Dus et al., (016)). The association of their occurrences to the identified sub-goals is the only task that may require additional manual work. Our stimulation of DNN attention may also be more generally used focus a DNN's attention on a priori known important elements of a training set.
Base models We demonstrate the general applicability of our CL integration strategies by applying them to two DNN architecture types representative of the two NLP standards of recurrent and transformer models. The recurrent DNN Liu et al. (2017) is the current SoTA for OG classification. It comprises a language model that builds two word and sentence embeddings, and an OG classifier with two LSTMs and linear projection. Our base model #1 is a modified version (Fig. left) with the word embedding provided as input to the OG classifier in place of the sentence embedding. This word embedding will be more directly impacted by our CL integration, and it increases explainability as will be seen next. It may be replaced by similar embeddings. and we also present results using the pre-trained GloVe (Pennington et al. 2014). Further, to compensate for the loss of sentence structure modelling previously provided by the sentence embedding, and to account for the longer sequences of inputs into the classifier, we add an unsupervised attention mechanism (Luong et al. 2015) into the classifier. Following the method in (Luong et al. 2015), the hidden states of the last LSTM for all words of the conversation are provided to the attention mechanism that outputs a conversation embedding of the same size the LSSMs hidden state, namely 256.
3

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
I Language Model
Ne.N
Word einbecding
LSSM
Softmax over vocabulary
Positional embedding
L
LSTM LSTM 2
Lincar projection
LSTM I
Linear projection
Word embedding
Self attention
LSTM
Attention
QG Claxiiler.....
Figure I: Base models #1 (left) #2 (right), for integration of CL priors. Orange and green indicate where word variants and OG processes priors may be integrated, respectively.
XLNet (Yang et al. 2019) is a popular transformer model, a SoTA for many NLP tasks, and therefore strong baseline for this study. It iteratively refines word embeddings, starting from an initial embedding that captures word semantic similarly to that Liu et al. (2017). and attaining richer word representations that account for word relationships within sentence using a positional embedding and self attention layers. The refined contex toalest word embeddings are classified by linear projection. In our application, this projection fails to handle class imbalance and always outputs the same class with F-score at 0.392. Providing the contextualised word embeddings to a two-layer LSTM, whose last hidden state is used conversation embedding be classified by the linear projection, solves this issue] and forms base model #2 (Fig. right). The combination of a transformer model with LSTM is not new, see for example (Ma 2019), and has the advantage of allowing the use of our SSTM-based knowledge integration strategies (see 'Stimulating LSTM input gates' in Section 4.2)
Input to the models- The analysis is performed on whole conversations, and the final OG / non- non-OG classification is obtained for the whole conversation, rather than per-message. Messages are separated by the [SEP] token, so that inter-text representations can be modelled. Messages from both users are included with no distinction. For base model #2, the [CLS] token is added at the beginning of conversations following the XLNet standard. Conversations longer than 2,000 words are truncated to retain their end part (12% 8e-5% of OG non-OG conversations). All base and CL-augmented DNNs take raw text as input only. The only text preparation prior to the DNN is tokenisation of named entities. We do not apply explicit text normalisation such as (Mansfield et al. 2019) as part of text preparation, since the methodological premise of the paper is the design of hybrid approach where MI. model incorporates its text normalisation informed by CL knowledge.
4.1 IMPLICIT AND SELECTIVE TEXT NORMALISAAIONN BASED ON WORD VARIANTS
The natural stage of DNNs integrate knowledge word variants is the word embedding that captures word semantic (i.e. before any LSTM or self-attention layer in the base models). The mean occurrence frequency of variants in the OG corpus is significantly larger, by two orders of magnitude, than that of all words (see sup. materials). Therefore, using these common words to modify the word embedding may have strong impact on classification. We propose strategies to modify the embedding based on our set of N pairs of variants {(f], of).... (vly, v'y)} using the principle that words with same semantic should be moved closer to each other in the embedding space.
Although variants have same intended meaning, some may be discriminative of groomers' language. Hence, it may be useful for OG classification to keep them apart in the word embedding space. The significance of word w for classification is determined based on empirical occurrences in OG and non-OG conversations within the training set: ōp(w) = [p(w)))p=) -pppppp(i yney)). If óp(v)) ) or óp(vg) are high (i.e. within the last 5 percentiles for all words), we do not use the pair for modification of the embedding. We considered increasing the separation between these variants, but we found that this modifies too much the embedding and reduces its semantic representation power. Out of 4590 pairs of variants, we retain 2955 for modification of the word embedding. In effect, this selective modification applies an implicit and selective text normalisation which supports the OG classification.
We experiment with implementations that may apply to different usage scenarios such as training a new language space (supervised word embedding modification), modifying existing one before training a new classifier (manifold-based or before fine-tuning an existing classifier (clastic pulling).
Thhe reason for this behaviour remains be investigated.
4

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
Supervised word embedding modification A regularisation term is added with weight À to the language modelling loss Emb to minimise the Le distance D between the selected word variants' embeddings: Lgmb = (1 X) Emmb + À Ex= D(v of)
Manifold learning We perform global transformation of the existing word embedding by building new space through manifold learning from an edited pairwise distance matrix with D(v "x)
(D 2 where À [0, 1] modulates the strength of distance reduction between selected variants. We use Robust Diffusion Map (Paiement et al. 2014), but other manifold learning methods could be explored. This implementation requires re- traiiinngg subsequent modules from scratch, as words' new embeddings may be very different from initial ones. Note that we make an unusual use of manifold learning for word embedding modification rather than for dimensionality reduction. It is possible to reduce dimensionality, which may help to combat overfitting for classification, as discussed in (Yin & Shen 2018). However, the dimensionality of the word embedding is unchanged in our experiments.
Elastic pulling- Our third implementation modifies the existing word embedding 'in place' through local movements that pull together the representations selected variants. This mostly preserves all words' original representations (i.e. coordinates in the embedding space), thus limiting the amount of change needed for the classifier to simple fine-tuning Two variants' representations of, and eg
of coordinates x and x are pulled towards their centre X x + by the amount 6x; = x
modulated by À [0, 1]: x x + Ad.y- We propagate the pull operation to neighbouring word representations, with strength of pull decreasing with distance (i.e. modulated by radial basis function (RBF) oi centred on x
) so as to preserve the pairwise relationships between variants and
their neighbours: x x+ x+ o (x) 6xj We use an inverse multiquadric of (x) (l|x [|]x-x|11++0 x= with global support so that all words can be considered for propagating each pulling operation without the need for a costly identification of those word representations that are located within the pulling's neighbourhood. B and y tune the RBF's decay rate i.e. the locality of propagated pull. We found that the method is not very sensitive to these values as long as the pull's reach is sufficient, within a radius of the order of magnitude of 6xy and we set them empirically to 1.0 and 3.0 respectively.
4.2 INTEGRATING KNOWLEDGE ON OG PROCESSES
Our annotated samples of OG processes are associated to 3-word collocates, which are used to identify contexts of interest. We define a continuous representation of the presence of the OG processes using 7 Gaussian Mixture Models (GMM) with components centred on the 3-word collocates and their std being the span of each collocate (max. 7 words as mentioned in Section 3). We propose uses to focus the attention of the DNN on parts of the conversations that implement the OG processes and on the associated language, and to implicitly model the relations between OG processes and OG.
Auxiliary OG process detection - A second output branch is added to the DNN after the LSTMs, with fully-connected layer and MSE loss, to estimate the pseudo occurrence probability of the OG processes provided by their GMMs, at each word location. For base model #1, we experimented with adding an attention block as the main branch, but found that this didn't help with the OG process detection, probably because this task is more local and doesn't 't need to consider as large context as classification of whole conversation. The new branch also serves as additional regularisation to prevent overfitting given the class imbalance between (non-)OG chat logs. Further, it allows for an OG process- based interpretation of what the DNN considers as relevant clues for OG classification.
Stimulating attention Both the unsupervised attention of Luong al. 2015) in base model #1, and the self- attention layers of base model #2, compute an attention energy e for word at position t. It may be stimulated during training to guide the DNN's attention propose two strategies that are not mutually exclusive and may be combined: a) through supervision by the sum G of GMMs used as ground-truth distribution of the salient locations and attention energies: Loneetiin + DT= (c. g())) with T the length of messages from both users. This is similar to (Nguyen & Nguyen 2018), 8), but with G highlighting higher-level OG processes rather than single important words. b) through direct excitation of the attention energies, inspired by
occurrences of OG processe We
No annotation of OG processes (i.e. GMM) is required at testing time.
5

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
(Derakhshani al.) 2019) that excited CNN's activations to speed up localisation learning in images. We propose two possible implementations: (A) é = e + (t) Ct, and (B) é₁ = e + G(t).
Stimulating LSTM input gates An alternative (or complement) to stimulating attention mech- anism is to stimulate LSTM cells directly, during training R in locations containing OG processes indicated by G. This is a new way stimulate attention and encourage the LSTM to recognise and focus on the contexts of OG processes. We propose two implementations that are not mutually exclusive and may be combined: a) through supervision by minimising the loss between the average
input gates' activations it and the combined GMMs: Lsimulation = = (ic - ((t))² b) through excitation of activations, following the same idea as for exciting attention. The input gate activation of of each LSTM cell d is augmented during OG processes, indicated by peak of G, through: id = i + ((t) ا hg We average over the hidden states ig of the D LSTM cells in the layer, by analogy to (Derakhshani et al. 2019) that averaged over all channels of a CNN's activation map.
5 EXPERIMENTS
Both original and modified base model #1 (including its word embedding) are trained from random weights on our dataset. Experiments with the GloVe embedding use GloVe's pre-trained weights from Common Crawl 840B (Pennington et al. 2014). The XLNet part of base model #2 is pre-trained on BookCorpus and English Wikipedia, see (Yang et al. 2019). Detailed training procedures are provided in the sup. materials. For base model #2, the selective text normalisation is not tested due to lack of time in fine-tuning XLNet. The attention is stimulated in the final self-attentio layer only, and future experiments may test other locations.
We divide the corpus into 30% of users for training, 70% for testing, and 30% of training for validation, using similar ratio as Inches & Crestani (2012). This division based users ensures that the model may not recognise the specific language of a groomer, but focuses on trends in OG language. OG classification is evaluated by: precision, recall, area under precision-recall curve (AUPR), Pi score, and the F0.5 score used in (Inches & Crestani] 2012) to weight the precision metric higher. The effects of selective text normalisation are further measured by their proportion of distance reduction [D(s),ef) -er)""swwwwwiieeeeee -D(vi.";)) and average resulting distance Df
between selected variants AD +/ Σx
D N Ex D(uk: vt). Accuracy is provided in the sup. materials.
5.1 EVALUATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CL-KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION STRATEGIES
We evaluate the individual effects of the different CL augmentations in Table | in comparison to non-augmented models. We also try combining the two supervised and excitation-based methods for stimulating attention and LSTM input gates. For a fairer comparison of the selective text normalisations, their modulation parameters X are approximately adjusted to provide loosely similar AD, as reported in the sup. materials.
Base model #1 (before augmentations) obtains similarly good results using both word embeddings, even though GloVe encompasses more words in larger embedding, with resulting larger D. Base model #1 generally responds well all CL-integrations (with some implementations of the selective text normalisation performing better than others, as discussed next). The selective text normalisation less effective on GloVe, maybe due to more drastic reduction of its larger initial distances. A grid search on À may be performed in the future to investigate this behaviour. Base model #2 outperforms base model #1, which confirms XLNet's status as one of the NLP SoTA. also responds well to augmentations based on knowledge of OG processes, with all metrics consistently improved. Thus, the selective text normalisation for XI.Net's 's embedding for word semantic (i.e. before self-attention layers) remains interesting strategy to evaluate in future experiments.
Among the 3 proposed implementations of selective text normalisation, only the pulling version provided an improvement, while the other two hindered OG classification in spite of a smaller reduction of distances between selected variants. For the supervised approach, this may be explained by the new loss term conflicting with the original word embedding loss. For manifold learning, although the algorithm preserves pairwise distances by design (as verified in sup. materials), this does not seem enough to fully preserve the semantic representation power of the word embedding.

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
Table I: Impact of each CL. augmentation on OG classification. Bold improved results with
respect to no augmentation, i.c. base models.
Model
Strategy
Precision
Recall
AUPR
Fi
Fó.s
AD/D
augmentation
0.867
0.794
0.867
0.829
0.851
- -33.72
Supervised word embed. modif.
0.834
0.765
0.824
0.798
0.819
0.75/0.91
Manifold learning
0.849
0.723
0.809
0.820
0.781
0.65/1.29
Elastic pulling
0.878
0.808
0.877
0.841
0.863
0.83/0.61
Aux. OG process detection
0.890
0.768
0.873
0.825
0.863
supervised
0.839
0.804
0.879
0.821
0.832
#1
excitation (A)
0.822
0.817
0.877
0.820
0.821
Stim. attention
excitation (B)
0.870
0.808
0.906
0.838
0.857
superv.+excit, (A)
0.859
0.819
0.897
0.838
0.851
superv.+excit. (B)
0.929
0,741
0.908
0.824
0.884
supervised
0.924
0.752
0,891
0.829
0.883
Stim. LSTM
excitation
0.856
0.797
0.863
0.825
0.843
superv.+excit.
0.906
0.781
0.901
0.839
0.878
No augmentation
0.879
0.789
0,861
0.832
0.860
- 8.90
w.
Supervised word embed. modif.
0.868
0.739
0.834
0.798
0.839
0.90/0.93
GloVe
Manifold learning
0.896
0,708
0.839
0.791
0,851
0.85/1.23
Elastic pulling
0.880
0.772
0.862
0.823
0.856
0.92/0.73
No augmentation
0.900
0.871
0.940
0.886
0.894
Aux. OG process detection
0.918
0,861
0.943
0.889
0.906
supervised
0.919
0.862
0.994
0.890
0.907
excitation (A)
0.894
0.885
0,945
0.889
0.892
Stim. attention
excitation (B)
0.916
0.866
0.940
0.891
0.906
#2
superv.+excit. (A)
0.891
0,881
0.941
0.886
0.889
sexerv. (B)
0.918
0.862
0.941
0.889
0.906
supervised
0.938
0.857
0.944
0.896
0.921
Stim. LSTM
excitation
0.896
0.896
0.944
0.887
0.892
superv.+excit.
0.960
0.846
0.945
0.899
0.935
On the other hand, the more gentle elastic pulling could preserve the original semantic representation of the word embedding while introducing an implicit normalisation of the selected word variants that supports OG classification.
It is worth noting, for base model #1, that D the average distance between the representations of two selected variants is at 3.72, higher than the average distance between all other pairs of words which is at 2.86. Therefore, base model #1, even though fully trained on OG classification, was not able to discover on its own the knowledge that some variants have same semantic meaning while not being discriminative for the OG classification task, and could therefore have same similar representations. This, together with the improved results from modifying the word embedding, demonstrate the usefulness of integrating this knowledge into the model.
All integrations knowledge on OG processes improved the performance of the models. This demonstrates that focusing the DNNs' attention the language associated with OG processes does help capturing subtleties of grooming language. In addition, when exploring the attention energies of (non-augmented) base model #1, we observe that the contexts that the model learnt to focus on are not related to our labelled instances of OG processes: the average (std) attention energy for these instances 0.0009 (0.0002). lower than energy across all conversations at 0.0016 (0.0128). similar observation is made for base model #2, where tokens' energies are obtained from the last self-attention layer similarly as (Sood et al. 2020)p by retaining the max pairwise energy for each token (row) and normalising by the sum of retained energies. This is done for each attention head, before averaging across heads. The resulting average (std) energy for our instances OG processes is 10 (0.072), slightly lower than the energy across all conversations at 020 (0.088). Thus, neither models were able to discover on their own the sub-goals that the CL analysis of Lorenzo- Dus et al. (2016) identified, and their associated language. This knowledge is therefore models, as also demonstrated by the improved results. The 3 strategies seem roughly equally helpful focusing the DNN's attention and capturing the subtleties of grooming language, and future work
added value for the
7

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
Table 2: Comparative evaluation of OG classification methods
Method
Precision
Recall
AUPR
Fi
Fo.5
Naive Bayes
0.240
0.974
0.727
0.385
0.283
SVM
0.997
0.337
0.748
0.504
0.716
Decision Tree
0.693
0.642
0.637
0.667
0.682
Random Forest
0.987
0.400
0.718
0.569
0.763
Liu (017)
0.919
0.735
0.885
0.817
0.875
BERT
0.837
0.711
0.815
0.711
0.808
Base model #1
0.867
0.794
0.867
0.829
0.851
Base model #1 + I.1 Regularisation
0.880
0.759
0.857
0.815
0.853
Base model #1 + Regularisation
0.896
0.783
0.890
0.835
0.871
Base model #2
0.900
0.871
0.940
0.886
0.894
Base model #2 + I.1 Regularisation
0.885
0.881
0.940
0.883
0.883
Base model #2 + 1.2 Regularisation
0.913
0.865
0.941
0.888
0.903
Augmented model #1
0.930
0.777
0.924
0.847
0.895
Augmented model #2
0.953
0.853
0.948
0.900
0.931
will explore their combinations. Improvements are more consistent for AUPR and precision (and consequently Fo.s), thanks to fewer false positives. This reduction in false positives may be due to an easier distinction of OG conversations from neutral but sexually-orient oriented ones.
For both stimulation strategies (attention mechanism and LSTM input gates) combining the supervi- sion and excitation approaches provides better results than using them individually. This suggests that these two processes support each other during optimisation. Indeed, improved DNN's attention (expressed in e and i,) from excitation may assist with the supervised attention task. In addition, improved attention from supervision may also reinforce the excitation and allow it to work at its best.
5.2 OG CLASSIFICATION PERFORMANCE
The prior integration methods are combined into fully augmented models #1 and #2. All algorithms for selective text normalisation have the same aim, thus we only retain the best performing elastic pulling. As suggested by the previous discussion on the supervision-excitatin different strategies and their implementations for integrating knowledge on OG processes may be complementary. Thus, we use all 3 strategies, combining supervision and excitation for both stimulation strategies, and choosing excitation B over A due to its better results. For augmented model #2, only the augmentations tested individually in Table are used. Comparative results on OG classification are provided in Table (ablerrover baselines and SoTA NLP models.
symbiosis, the
Although base model #1 does slightly worse than (Liu et al. 2017), its augmented version outperforms by a margin. XLNet of base model #2 is the best performing of oo-CCL-uugmeted models. Its augmentation by the combined integration of CL knowledge on word variants and OG processes significantly improves its performance and produces the new SoTA.
For both base models, the combined augmentations (Table[2 add up to improvements that are superior those of individual augmentations (Table [). This particularly true for augmented model #1 that accumulates all 4 augmentations, while augmented model #2 is limited to 3. Its SoTA may be further improved in the future through adding the selective text normalisation. In the sup. materials, we further explore how the individual augmentations add up through their progressive additions to simple LSTM model. We observe that their respective benefits are complementary.
In order to verify that the improved results do come from better understanding of language provided by CL. knowledge, rather than merely from additional regularisation, we also compare against I. and L2 regularised version of both base models. Although regularisation does improve the results, the performance gains from integrating CL knowledge are significantly superior for both models.
Since the augmented models make use of OG processes' recognition to capture the language associated with grooming, their auxiliary OG process detection may be used to highlight, at word level, those parts of the conversation that the model associates to OG processes. These visualised in Fig.2) where the estimated likelihood of the Compliance testing process is indicated in shades of red. The DNN focused on questions about personal situation and invitations talk
Visualisation
8

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
<razy4justin66: been in school lcng
tennisbey213: the number seemeed like it was out town call now
tennishoy213: kinda
tennisbey213:
tenniabey213: so ur mom home 7
tennisbey213: hey can call u
crazy4justin06: not yet lennishsy212 do wen na talk on the phone
tannisbey213: that way wan't get charged for long distance crazy4juctin0E: i got calling tennisboy212: its ok if call we can talk longer
srazz4justin06: gon answer this time
tennisbey213: yup
crazy4justin6: how did know was me tat called?
Figure 2: Visualisation of detecting the Compliance testing OG process.
over the phone, as indicators of compliance testing happening, in line with general understanding of this OG process. While these elements of discussion may seem neutral enough and may not be captured by generic OG classifiers, the DNN's understanding of OG processes and of their relation to OG made it increase the OG classification score at each detection of OG process. In future work, similar visualisation could be performed using the attention energies e, and LSTM input gate activations it to assess the better capturing of subtle language clues provided by the two other strategies for integrating knowledge on OG processes, and their effect on OG classification.
CONCLUSION
We have explored the integration of CL knowledge in hybrid (data- and knowledge-driven) DNN. We considered two types of CL knowledge, namely: 1) variants of semantically equivalent words that are, or not, discriminative of OG, and which we use to perform a selective text normalisation in support of classification. Existing normalisation methods would apply to full text with no such distinction, thus failing to provide this support. 2) The identification of some OG processes and their associated language, which we use to focus the attention of the DNN subtle language clues. We compared several integration approaches, including a new method for stimulating an LSTM's attention directly through its input gates, without the need for an external attention mechanism. For our final augmented model, we selected a gentle pulling method for selective text normalisation well as combination of auxiliary tasks, and supervision and excitation for stimulated attention and stimulated LSTM, whose benefits add up to produce the SoTA. We demonstrated the general applicability of our approaches on two architecture types of recurrent and transformer neural networks and two word embeddings of different complexities. Our results show performance improvements over base and SoTA models for both architectures. while allowing for CL based interpretation of the classification decision through visualisation of predicted OG processes and DNN's s attention.
While we have demonstrated the applicability of these methodologies for CL knowledge on OG, we see the potential for other domains that utilise similar representations or model architectures (see discussion in Section 4). The selective text normalisation that we propose more generally applicable to other classification tasks from chat conversations, and its proposed implementations are usable on other DNNs that use a word embedding to capture word semantic. The decomposition of conversations into sub- gooaloals may be obtained from CL studies other applications. Some of the proposed strategies may also allow the integration of other (non-CL) domain knowledge. It may be generally useful to estimate auxiliary quantities that known to be relevant the task and that may usefully constrain the DNN's attention and learnt features. Our two other methods for focusing the DNN's s attention (i.e. stimulated attention and stimulated LSTM input gates) may be generally used to weight more some important elements of the training data.
Perspectives for OG prevention - The proposed OG classification method has been designed based on requirements from specialised law enforcement to assist in the investigation of large quantities of chat logs. Its intended usage is to facilitate triage by law enforcement of digital materials that could be seized from suspected offenders after enough evidence allowed launching the procedure. Flagged conversations are to be investigated more thoroughly by trained human operator following law enforcement's is strict robustness and security protocols to ensure integrity. Within this usage scenario, there is, therefore, no risk of innocents to be automatically prosecuted. The aim our work is not to address the possible biases in the human decision, which are addressed by law enforcement's protocols. However, the proposed visualisation that helps focusing on key aspects of the conversation, together with the reduced workload and associated lowered time pressure, may allow more thorough and fairer investigation of the flagged conversations. Mitigation measures should be put in place, but these are outside the scope of this work.

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
REFERENCES
Paul Baker, Rachelle Vessey, and Tony McEnery. The language of violent jihad. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Andrew Brindle. The language of hate: A corpus lingusitic analysis of white supremacist language. Routledge, 2016.
Emily Chiang and Tim Grant. Deceptive identity performance: Offender moves and multiple identities in online child abuse conversations. Applied Linguistics, 40(4):675-69) 698, 2019.
Mohammad Mahdi Derakhshani, Saeed Masoudnia, Amir Hossein Shaker, Omid Mersa, Moham- mad Amin Sadeghi, Mohammad Rastegari, and Babak N. Araabi. Assisted excitation of activations: A learning technique to improve object detectors. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 9201-9210, 2019.
Kuzman Ganchev, Jennifer Gillenwater, and Ben Taskar. Posterior regularization for structured latent variable models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 1 11(Jul):001-2244 2010.
Jos Mara Gmez Hidalgo and Andrs Alfonso Diaz, Caurcel. Combining predation heuristics and chat-like features in sexual predator identification. CLEF, 2012.
Zhiting Hu, Xuezhe Ma. Zhengzhong Liu, Eduard Hovy, and Eric Xing. Harnessing deep neural networks with logic rules. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 2410-2420, 2016.
Zhiting Hu, Zichao Yang, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Xiaodan Liang, Lianhui Qin, Haoye Dong, and Eric Xing. Deep generative models with learnable knowledge constraints. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 10501-10514 2018.
Giacomo Inches and Fabio Crestani. Overview of the International Sexual Predator Identification Competition at PAN-2012. In CLEF, volume 30, 2012.
Jeremy Kawahara, Colin J. Brown, Steven P. Miller, Brian G. Booth, Vann Chau, Ruth E. Grunau, Jill G. Zwicker, and Ghassan Hamarneh. BrainNetCNN: Convolutional neural networks for brain networks; Towards predicting neurodevelopment. Neurolmage, 146: 146:1038-1049 2017.
Dan Liu, Ching Yee Suen, and Olga Ormandjieva. A novel way of identifying eyber predators. In arXiv preprint arXiv: 1712.03903, 2017.
Nuria Lorenzo- -us and Lella Nouri. The discourse of the US alt-right online - A case study of the Traditionalist Worker Party blog. Critical Discourse Studies, 2020.
Nuria Lorenzo-Dus, Cristina Izura, and Roco Pérez-Tattam. Understanding grooming discourse in computer-mediated environments. Discourse, Context and Media, 12:40-50, 2016.
Minh Thang Luong, Hieu Pham, and Christopher D Manning. Effective approaches to attention-based
neural machine translation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1412-1421. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015.
Guoqin Ma. Tweets classification with BERT in the field of disaster management, 2019.
Courtney Mansfield, Ming Sun, Yuzong Liu, Ankur Gandhe, and Björn Hoffmeister. Neural text normalization with subword units. North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 2019.
Katerina Margatina, Christos Baziotis, and Alexandros Potamianos. Attention-basee conditioning methods for external knowledge integration. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pp. 3944-3951, 2019.
Tony McEnery and Andrew Wilson. Corpus linguistics. The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics, pp. 448 448-463, 2003.
Nikhil Muralidhar, Mohammad Raihanul Islam, and Manish Marwah. Incorporating prior domain knowledge into deep neural networks. IEFE Big Data, pp. 36-45, 2018.
10

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2021
Minh Nguyen and Thien Huu Nguyen. Who is killed by police: Introducing supervised attention for hierarchical LSTMs. In Interaational Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 2277-22877 2018.
Lella Nouri and Nuria Lorenzo-Dus. Investigating Reclaim Australia and Britain Firsts use of social media: Developing a new model of imagined political communities online. Journal for Deradicalization, 18:1-37. 2019.
Adeline Paiement, Lili Tao, Massimo Camplani, Sion Hannuna, Dima Damen, and Majid Mirmehdi. Online quality assessment of human movement from skeleton data. In British Machine Vision Conference, pp. 153-166, 2014.
Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. GloVe:
Global vectors for word representation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp- 1543, 2014.
Ioannis Saridakis and Effic Mouka. A corpus study of outgrouping Greek radical right computer- mediated discourses. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 8: 188-231, 2020.
Daniela Schneevogt, Emily Chiang, and Tim Grant. Do Perverted Justice chat logs contain examples of overt persuasion and sexual extortion? research note responding to Chiang and Grant (2017,
2018). Language and Law= Linguagem Direito, 5(1):97-102, 2018.
John Sinclair. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press, 1991.
Ekta Sood, Simon Tannert, Diego Frassinelli, Andreas Bulling, and Ngoc Thang Vu. Interpreting attention models with human visual attention in machine reading comprehension. In ACL SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pp. 12-25, 2020.
Anna Vartapetiance and Lee Gillam. "Our Little Secret": Pinpointing potential predators. Security Informatics, 3(1):3 2014.
Esa Villatoro-Tello, Antonio Juárez-González,, Hugo Jair Escalante, Manuel Montes-y ;6mme, and Luis Villaseñor- A two-step approach for effective detection of misbehaving users in chats Notebook for PAN CLEF 2012. In CLEF, 2012.
Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding, In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 5764-5764, 2019.
Zi Yin and Yuanyuan Shen. On the dimensionality of word embedding. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 894-905, 2018.


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "nmxzn-nfFVl", "reviewer": "AnonReviewer1", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "This paper presents an approach to natural language processing which integrates corpus linguistics knowledge within deep neural networks (namely, an LSTM-based architecture with attention). The approach is tailored and evaluated on a specific application, namely online grooming detection.\n\nThe approach is based on (1) the normalization of word embeddings by exploiting word semantics representations and word variants; (2) the decomposition of conversation analysis to identify subgoals, by exploiting online grooming processes (or phases); (3) the use of attention to modulate the input gate of LSTM cells. Another significant contribution of the paper is a novel corpus, which extends a previous one (PAN2012). The proposed neural architecture presents several variants in otder to incorporate linguistic knowledge within the model, and the paper reports about such an ablation study.\n\nIn the experimental evaluation, linguistic knowledge is injected within two base models, namely one based on LSTMs, and the other one on XL-Net. Performance is shown to be improved with respect to the state-of-the-art.\n\nAlthough the considered task is indeed very important, a weak point of the paper is that it considers a single domain, and the method looks tailored to such domain. The paper asserts that the same methodology could be applied to different scenarios in the domain of chat conversations, but this is not confirmed by the experimental evaluation. For example, what about the process of identification of \"variants\": is such process hand-made? Would it be possible to have more details on such part?\n\n- Pag. 7, \"This may be due to this capturing of language subtleties helping with distinguishing OG conversations...\" -> this sentence should probably be rephrased\n- Pag. 7, \"have same aim\" -> \"have the same aim\"", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "5BOnM4u3n88", "reviewer": "AnonReviewer2", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "Summary\n\nThis work proposes the approach of integrating priors into a DNN in the form of Linguistic sub-models that capture characteristics of OG. The authors use the example of the PAN-12 dataset for sexual predators to use information about linguistics behaviour for the grooming phases. The work then goes to highlight the augmentations that are done on baseline DNN models to include these CL characteristics. The authors then go on to show the impact of these augmenations on performance of classification on the PAN-12 dataset.\n\nQuestions\n \n- When reading the descriptions of the linguistic sub-models in the DNN, one has the question if we could compare subsets of a DNN that is trained without these explicit sub-models. and may have learned these representations for normalisation etc. vs the integrated CL knowledge. \n\nCould we work to extract interpretable pieces fo the DNN that will then be comparable to the proposed CL augmentations?\n\nThe above is important as work on the PAN-12 dataset has tried to reconcile the NLP approach with also understanding the behaviour of sexual predators, so if we can learn how the DNNs are extracting information, we can better create interpretability models that can be more general for NLP + DNNs.\n\n- The work does well to show the gains we get from including these priors. I think we would be better suited if we also understood in the base models, how much of the priors were learnt.\n\n- Please also include a note about some of the ethical considerations when dealing with the PAN-12 dataset and how the data was created.", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "4di_quBQOT8", "reviewer": "AnonReviewer3", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "", "summary_of_the_paper": "", "summary_of_the_review": "", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "##########################################################################\n\nSummary:\n\nThis paper proposes two families of methods for integrating external knowledge\ninto neural networks aimed at classifying instances of online grooming. The\nfirst family focuses on incorporating knowledge of word semantic similarity into\ntheir representations. The second, on different attention mechanisms for\nincorporating knowledge about theoretical stages of online grooming.\n\nThe authors perform a solid amount of experiments to assess the differences\nbetween their suggested methods and baseline models.\n\n\n##########################################################################\n\nReasons for score:\n\nHowever, the way the paper is written and structured make it difficult to\nunderstand. While looking at the results, it is hard to really assess the\ncontribution of each suggested strategy, and how they compare to each other.\n\nFinally, the paper presents some serious conceptual gaps that undermine its\noverall credibility.\n\n##########################################################################\n\nPros:\n\n- Fair amount of experiments for assessing impact of each proposed strategy.\n- The ideas for modeling different word variants could be built upon. I\n  especially like the idea of Elastic Pulling for combining the semantic\n  information of word representations. This idea would be useful to the research\n  community focusing on combining word representations.\n\n\n##########################################################################\n\nCons:\n\n- Some serious conceptual gaps, and wrong claims. .\n- The paper is overall unclear and difficult to understand.\n- The task the paper is addressing is not well specified.\n- The methods are also not clearly explained.\n- Results are difficult to interpret and analyses are lacking.\n- Lack of ethical considerations for a system that could be used in law\n  enforcement. I would have liked to see a more detailed discussion on the\n  societal implications that systems aiding law enforcement could have, and in\n  particular, which measures should be taken for avoiding the prosecution of\n  innocent people by systems like this.\n\n#########################################################################\n\nComments and suggestions for the authors:\n\n- The term \"text normalisation\" is spread throughout the paper, but is never\n  concretely defined, and is not immediately inferable.\n\n- I was not familiar with the \"word semantics representation\" noun phrase. After\n  reading the paper I am pretty sure that you mean \"vector space model\", or word\n  embeddings. Why not use these terms that will probably be more familiar to\n  potential readers?\n\n- In Figure 1 (left), you wrote Embedding; at the right you wrote WSR. Are these\n  equivalent?\n\n- I understand that you are doing classification at the conversation level, but\n  in page 3, in the \"Base models\" paragraph, you mention that \"with the WSR's\n  embedding provided as input to the OG classifier in place of a sentence\n  embedding\". In order to classify a conversation, you need a vector\n  representation of it. How is this obtained? In other words, how are you\n  aggregating the contextualized word representations (i.e., the output of the\n  LSTM or the XLNet encoder), into a single vector representation of the\n  conversation? Are you using the last hidden state of the LSTM or a pooling\n  method? Are you using the [CLS] token of XLNet or something else?\n\n- You mentioned that your dataset contains full conversations with an average of\n  431 messages per conversation. Are all the conversation turns separated by the\n  [SEP] token? What is the average message length? What max input length did you\n  use as a hyperparameter? Did you use the same text input for Model 1 and Model\n  2?\n\n- Saying XLNet is the SoTA for NLP is a false statement (p. 3 second-last\n  paragraph). First of all, NLP encompasses several tasks and there is no single\n  model superior to all the others in every task. Second, XLNet has already been\n  beaten in several tasks. See the Glue benchmark\n  (https://gluebenchmark.com/leaderboard) for a few examples. You mention that\n  XLNet is the SoTA of NLP again in p. 6; sec. 5.1; second paragraph.\n\n- Saying that XLNet iteratively refines word embeddings from a WSR similar to\n  that of LIU et al. (2017) is only tangentially true and is misleading, in my\n  opinion. Recurrent models such as those relying on LSTMs, are profoundly\n  different to those based on transformers such as XLNet.\n\n- I am not sure that there is a clear correspondence between using recurrent\n  models such as LSTMs and better handling of class imbalance. How is a\n  two-layer LSTM going to help handling class imbalance?\n\n- You mentioned several times that \"text normalisation\" was a strong point of\n  your contribution, but in the last paragraph of section 4 (p.4) you say that\n  you do not apply \"text normalisation\". I understand that you might be\n  referring to different kinds of normalisation, but I think this terminology is\n  confusing. I suggest using more precise language to clearly differentiate\n  what you are referring to.\n\n- What do you mean by \"intersection tests\"?\n\n- I suggest using the word \"representations\" rather than \"coordinates\" for\n  referring to the vector representation of a word (p. 4; elastic pulling\n  paragraph).\n\n- The correspondence between rows in Table 1 and the strategies discussed in\n  section 4.2, are not immediately apparent.\n\n- When not using GloVe embeddings, how did you initialize your word\n  representations?\n\n- You mention in Table 1 that bold are improved results, but improved with\n  respect to what?\n\n- You report precision and recall in Table 2, but not in Table 1. I think it\n  would be valuable to include these in Table 1, rather than the distance\n  reduction and average resulting distance metrics which are only valid for a few\n  strategies.\n\n- You could check the following papers for more context on combining\n  representations of different word variants:\n  * [Attention-based Conditioning Methods for External Knowledge Integration](https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P19-1385/)\n  * [Compositional-ly Derived Representations of Morphologically Complex Words in Distributional Semantics](https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P13-1149/)\n  * [Composition in Distributional Models of Semantics](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01106.x)\n\n\n#########################################################################\n\nSome typos:\n\n- p. 4; Manifold Learning - \"by building, using manifold learning, a new space\"\n  could be better written as \"by building through manifold learning a new space\"\n  or \"by building a new space through manifold learning\"\n\n- p. 4 - \"it is possible reduce dimensionality\" -> \"it is possible to reduce\n  dimensionality\"\n\n- p.5, sec. 4.2, first paragraph - \"collocates and std the span\". Not sure what\n  std is supposed to mean here.\n\n\n", "extra_scores": {}, "extra_text": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: Most reviewers did not feel that this paper was ready for publication. I thank the authors for answering all the concerns of the reviewers, running new experiments and submitting a revised version, however, this was not not enough to alleviate the reviewers' concerns, notably relating to the handling of the ethical consideration in the writing of the manuscript.
Decision: Reject