ymoslem/acl-abstracts huggingface dataset:
ARGUABLY at ComMA@ICON: Detection of Multilingual Aggressive, Gender Biased, and Communally Charged Tweets Using Ensemble and Fine-Tuned IndicBERT (2021)

The proliferation in Social Networking has increased offensive language, aggression, and hate-speech detection, which has drawn the focus of the NLP community. However, people`s difference in perception makes it difficult to distinguish between acceptable content and aggressive/hateful content, thus making it harder to create an automated system. In this paper, we propose multi-class classification techniques to identify aggressive and offensive language used online. Two main approaches have been developed for the classification of data into aggressive, gender-biased, and communally charged. The first approach is an ensemble-based model comprising of XG-Boost, LightGBM, and Naive Bayes applied on vectorized English data. The data used was obtained using an Indic Transliteration on the original data comprising of Meitei, Bangla, Hindi, and English language. The second approach is a BERT-based architecture used to detect misogyny and aggression. The proposed model employs IndicBERT Embeddings to define contextual understanding. The results of the models are validated on the ComMA v 0.2 dataset.
Sdutta at ComMA@ICON: A CNN-LSTM Model for Hate Detection (2021)

In today`s world, online activity and social media are facing an upsurge of cases of aggression, gender-biased comments and communal hate. In this shared task, we used a CNN-LSTM hybrid method to detect aggression, misogynistic and communally charged content in social media texts. First, we employ text cleaning and convert the text into word embeddings. Next we proceed to our CNN-LSTM based model to predict the nature of the text. Our model achieves 0.288, 0.279, 0.294 and 0.335 Overall Micro F1 Scores in multilingual, Meitei, Bengali and Hindi datasets, respectively, on the 3 prediction labels.
MUCIC at ComMA@ICON: Multilingual Gender Biased and Communal Language Identification Using N-grams and Multilingual Sentence Encoders (2021)

Social media analytics are widely being explored by researchers for various applications. Prominent among them are identifying and blocking abusive contents especially targeting individuals and communities, for various reasons. The increasing abusive contents and the increasing number of users on social media demands automated tools to detect and filter the abusive contents as it is highly impossible to handle this manually. To address the challenges of detecting abusive contents, this paper describes the approaches proposed by our team MUCIC for Multilingual Gender Biased and Communal Language Identification shared task (ComMA@ICON) at International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON) 2021. This shared task dataset consists of code-mixed multi-script texts in Meitei, Bangla, Hindi as well as in Multilingual (a combination of Meitei, Bangla, Hindi, and English). The shared task is modeled as a multi-label Text Classification (TC) task combining word and char n-grams with vectors obtained from Multilingual Sentence Encoder (MSE) to train the Machine Learning (ML) classifiers using Pre-aggregation and Post-aggregation of labels. These approaches obtained the highest performance in the shared task for Meitei, Bangla, and Multilingual texts with instance-F1 scores of 0.350, 0.412, and 0.380 respectively using Pre-aggregation of labels.
MUM at ComMA@ICON: Multilingual Gender Biased and Communal Language Identification Using Supervised Learning Approaches (2021)

Due to the rapid rise of social networks and micro-blogging websites, communication between people from different religion, caste, creed, cultural and psychological backgrounds has become more direct leading to the increase in cyber conflicts between people. This in turn has given rise to more and more hate speech and usage of abusive words to the point that it has become a serious problem creating negative impacts on the society. As a result, it is imperative to identify and filter such content on social media to prevent its further spread and the damage it is going to cause. Further, filtering such huge data requires automated tools since doing it manually is labor intensive and error prone. Added to this is the complex code-mixed and multi-scripted nature of social media text. To address the challenges of abusive content detection on social media, in this paper, we, team MUM, propose Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) models submitted to Multilingual Gender Biased and Communal Language Identification (ComMA@ICON) shared task at International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON) 2021. Word uni-grams, char n-grams, and emoji vectors are combined as features to train a ML Elastic-net regression model and multi-lingual Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (mBERT) is fine-tuned for a DL model. Out of the two, fine-tuned mBERT model performed better with an instance-F1 score of 0.326, 0.390, 0.343, 0.359 for Meitei, Bangla, Hindi, Multilingual texts respectively.
BFCAI at ComMA@ICON 2021: Support Vector Machines for Multilingual Gender Biased and Communal Language Identification (2021)

This paper presents the system that has been submitted to the multilingual gender biased and communal language identification shared task by BFCAI team. The proposed model used Support Vector Machines (SVMs) as a classification algorithm. The features have been extracted using TF/IDF model with unigram and bigram. The proposed model is very simple and there are no external resources are needed to build the model.
It`s Commonsense, isn`t it? Demystifying Human Evaluations in Commonsense-Enhanced NLG Systems (2021)

Common sense is an integral part of human cognition which allows us to make sound decisions, communicate effectively with others and interpret situations and utterances. Endowing AI systems with commonsense knowledge capabilities will help us get closer to creating systems that exhibit human intelligence. Recent efforts in Natural Language Generation (NLG) have focused on incorporating commonsense knowledge through large-scale pre-trained language models or by incorporating external knowledge bases. Such systems exhibit reasoning capabilities without common sense being explicitly encoded in the training set. These systems require careful evaluation, as they incorporate additional resources during training which adds additional sources of errors. Additionally, human evaluation of such systems can have significant variation, making it impossible to compare different systems and define baselines. This paper aims to demystify human evaluations of commonsense-enhanced NLG systems by proposing the Commonsense Evaluation Card (CEC), a set of recommendations for evaluation reporting of commonsense-enhanced NLG systems, underpinned by an extensive analysis of human evaluations reported in the recent literature.
Estimating Subjective Crowd-Evaluations as an Additional Objective to Improve Natural Language Generation (2021)

Human ratings are one of the most prevalent methods to evaluate the performance of NLP (natural language processing) algorithms. Similarly, it is common to measure the quality of sentences generated by a natural language generation model using human raters. In this paper we argue for exploring the use of subjective evaluations within the process of training language generation models in a multi-task learning setting. As a case study, we use a crowd-authored dialogue corpus to fine-tune six different language generation models. Two of these models incorporate multi-task learning and use subjective ratings of lines as part of an explicit learning goal. A human evaluation of the generated dialogue lines reveals that utterances generated by the multi-tasking models were subjectively rated as the most typical, most moving the conversation forward, and least offensive. Based on these promising first results, we discuss future research directions for incorporating subjective human evaluations into language model training and to hence keep the human user in the loop during the development process.
Trading Off Diversity and Quality in Natural Language Generation (2021)

For open-ended language generation tasks such as storytelling or dialogue, choosing the right decoding algorithm is vital for controlling the tradeoff between generation \textit{quality} and \textit{diversity}. However, there presently exists no consensus on which decoding procedure is best or even the criteria by which to compare them. In this paper, we cast decoding as a tradeoff between response quality and diversity, and we perform the first large-scale evaluation of decoding methods along the entire quality-diversity spectrum. Our experiments confirm the existence of the likelihood trap: the counter-intuitive observation that high likelihood sequences are often surprisingly low quality. We also find that when diversity is a priority, all methods perform similarly, but when quality is viewed as more important, nucleus sampling (Holtzman et al., 2019) outperforms all other evaluated decoding algorithms.
Towards Document-Level Human MT Evaluation: On the Issues of Annotator Agreement, Effort and Misevaluation (2021)

Document-level human evaluation of machine translation (MT) has been raising interest in the community. However, little is known about the issues of using document-level methodologies to assess MT quality. In this article, we compare the inter-annotator agreement (IAA) scores, the effort to assess the quality in different document-level methodologies, and the issue of misevaluation when sentences are evaluated out of context.
Is This Translation Error Critical?: Classification-Based Human and Automatic Machine Translation Evaluation Focusing on Critical Errors (2021)

This paper discusses a classification-based approach to machine translation evaluation, as opposed to a common regression-based approach in the WMT Metrics task. Recent machine translation usually works well but sometimes makes critical errors due to just a few wrong word choices. Our classification-based approach focuses on such errors using several error type labels, for practical machine translation evaluation in an age of neural machine translation. We made additional annotations on the WMT 2015-2017 Metrics datasets with fluency and adequacy labels to distinguish different types of translation errors from syntactic and semantic viewpoints. We present our human evaluation criteria for the corpus development and automatic evaluation experiments using the corpus. The human evaluation corpus will be publicly available upon publication.
Towards Objectively Evaluating the Quality of Generated Medical Summaries (2021)

We propose a method for evaluating the quality of generated text by asking evaluators to count facts, and computing precision, recall, f-score, and accuracy from the raw counts. We believe this approach leads to a more objective and easier to reproduce evaluation. We apply this to the task of medical report summarisation, where measuring objective quality and accuracy is of paramount importance.
A Preliminary Study on Evaluating Consultation Notes With Post-Editing (2021)

Automatic summarisation has the potential to aid physicians in streamlining clerical tasks such as note taking. But it is notoriously difficult to evaluate these systems and demonstrate that they are safe to be used in a clinical setting. To circumvent this issue, we propose a semi-automatic approach whereby physicians post-edit generated notes before submitting them. We conduct a preliminary study on the time saving of automatically generated consultation notes with post-editing. Our evaluators are asked to listen to mock consultations and to post-edit three generated notes. We time this and find that it is faster than writing the note from scratch. We present insights and lessons learnt from this experiment.
The Great Misalignment Problem in Human Evaluation of NLP Methods (2021)

We outline the Great Misalignment Problem in natural language processing research, this means simply that the problem definition is not in line with the method proposed and the human evaluation is not in line with the definition nor the method. We study this misalignment problem by surveying 10 randomly sampled papers published in ACL 2020 that report results with human evaluation. Our results show that only one paper was fully in line in terms of problem definition, method and evaluation. Only two papers presented a human evaluation that was in line with what was modeled in the method. These results highlight that the Great Misalignment Problem is a major one and it affects the validity and reproducibility of results obtained by a human evaluation.
A View From the Crowd: Evaluation Challenges for Time-Offset Interaction Applications (2021)

Dialogue systems like chatbots, and tasks like question-answering (QA) have gained traction in recent years; yet evaluating such systems remains difficult. Reasons include the great variety in contexts and use cases for these systems as well as the high cost of human evaluation. In this paper, we focus on a specific type of dialogue systems: Time-Offset Interaction Applications (TOIAs) are intelligent, conversational software that simulates face-to-face conversations between humans and pre-recorded human avatars. Under the constraint that a TOIA is a single output system interacting with users with different expectations, we identify two challenges: first, how do we define a {\textquoteleft}good' answer? and second, what`s an appropriate metric to use? We explore both challenges through the creation of a novel dataset that identifies multiple good answers to specific TOIA questions through the help of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. This {\textquoteleft}view from the crowd' allows us to study the variations of how TOIA interrogators perceive its answers. Our contributions include the annotated dataset that we make publicly available and the proposal of Success Rate @k as an evaluation metric that is more appropriate than the traditional QA`s and information retrieval`s metrics.
Reliability of Human Evaluation for Text Summarization: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead (2021)

Only a small portion of research papers with human evaluation for text summarization provide information about the participant demographics, task design, and experiment protocol. Additionally, many researchers use human evaluation as gold standard without questioning the reliability or investigating the factors that might affect the reliability of the human evaluation. As a result, there is a lack of best practices for reliable human summarization evaluation grounded by empirical evidence. To investigate human evaluation reliability, we conduct a series of human evaluation experiments, provide an overview of participant demographics, task design, experimental set-up and compare the results from different experiments. Based on our empirical analysis, we provide guidelines to ensure the reliability of expert and non-expert evaluations, and we determine the factors that might affect the reliability of the human evaluation.
On User Interfaces for Large-Scale Document-Level Human Evaluation of Machine Translation Outputs (2021)

Recent studies emphasize the need of document context in human evaluation of machine translations, but little research has been done on the impact of user interfaces on annotator productivity and the reliability of assessments. In this work, we compare human assessment data from the last two WMT evaluation campaigns collected via two different methods for document-level evaluation. Our analysis shows that a document-centric approach to evaluation where the annotator is presented with the entire document context on a screen leads to higher quality segment and document level assessments. It improves the correlation between segment and document scores and increases inter-annotator agreement for document scores but is considerably more time consuming for annotators.
Eliciting Explicit Knowledge From Domain Experts in Direct Intrinsic Evaluation of Word Embeddings for Specialized Domains (2021)

We evaluate the use of direct intrinsic word embedding evaluation tasks for specialized language. Our case study is philosophical text: human expert judgements on the relatedness of philosophical terms are elicited using a synonym detection task and a coherence task. Uniquely for our task, experts must rely on explicit knowledge and cannot use their linguistic intuition, which may differ from that of the philosopher. We find that inter-rater agreement rates are similar to those of more conventional semantic annotation tasks, suggesting that these tasks can be used to evaluate word embeddings of text types for which implicit knowledge may not suffice.
Detecting Post-Edited References and Their Effect on Human Evaluation (2021)

This paper provides a quick overview of possible methods how to detect that reference translations were actually created by post-editing an MT system. Two methods based on automatic metrics are presented: BLEU difference between the suspected MT and some other good MT and BLEU difference using additional references. These two methods revealed a suspicion that the WMT 2020 Czech reference is based on MT. The suspicion was confirmed in a manual analysis by finding concrete proofs of the post-editing procedure in particular sentences. Finally, a typology of post-editing changes is presented where typical errors or changes made by the post-editor or errors adopted from the MT are classified.
A Case Study of Efficacy and Challenges in Practical Human-in-Loop Evaluation of NLP Systems Using Checklist (2021)

Despite state-of-the-art performance, NLP systems can be fragile in real-world situations. This is often due to insufficient understanding of the capabilities and limitations of models and the heavy reliance on standard evaluation benchmarks. Research into non-standard evaluation to mitigate this brittleness is gaining increasing attention. Notably, the behavioral testing principle {\textquoteleft}Checklist', which decouples testing from implementation revealed significant failures in state-of-the-art models for multiple tasks. In this paper, we present a case study of using Checklist in a practical scenario. We conduct experiments for evaluating an offensive content detection system and use a data augmentation technique for improving the model using insights from Checklist. We lay out the challenges and open questions based on our observations of using Checklist for human-in-loop evaluation and improvement of NLP systems. Disclaimer: The paper contains examples of content with offensive language. The examples do not represent the views of the authors or their employers towards any person(s), group(s), practice(s), or entity/entities.
Interrater Disagreement Resolution: A Systematic Procedure to Reach Consensus in Annotation Tasks (2021)

We present a systematic procedure for interrater disagreement resolution. The procedure is general, but of particular use in multiple-annotator tasks geared towards ground truth construction. We motivate our proposal by arguing that, barring cases in which the researchers' goal is to elicit different viewpoints, interrater disagreement is a sign of poor quality in the design or the description of a task. Consensus among annotators, we maintain, should be striven for, through a systematic procedure for disagreement resolution such as the one we describe.
Towards Hybrid Human-Machine Workflow for Natural Language Generation (2021)

In recent years, crowdsourcing has gained much attention from researchers to generate data for the Natural Language Generation (NLG) tools or to evaluate them. However, the quality of crowdsourced data has been questioned repeatedly because of the complexity of NLG tasks and crowd workers' unknown skills. Moreover, crowdsourcing can also be costly and often not feasible for large-scale data generation or evaluation. To overcome these challenges and leverage the complementary strengths of humans and machine tools, we propose a hybrid human-machine workflow designed explicitly for NLG tasks with real-time quality control mechanisms under budget constraints. This hybrid methodology is a powerful tool for achieving high-quality data while preserving efficiency. By combining human and machine intelligence, the proposed workflow decides dynamically on the next step based on the data from previous steps and given constraints. Our goal is to provide not only the theoretical foundations of the hybrid workflow but also to provide its implementation as open-source in future work.
Spellchecking for Children in Web Search: a Natural Language Interface Case-study (2021)

Given the more widespread nature of natural language interfaces, it is increasingly important to understand who are accessing those interfaces, and how those interfaces are being used. In this paper, we explore spellchecking in the context of web search with children as the target audience. In particular, via a literature review we show that, while widely used, popular search tools are ill-designed for children. We then use spellcheckers as a case study to highlight the need for an interdisciplinary approach that brings together natural language processing, education, human-computer interaction to address a known information retrieval problem: query misspelling. We conclude that it is imperative that those for whom the interfaces are designed have a voice in the design process.
Capturing Covertly Toxic Speech via Crowdsourcing (2021)

We study the task of labeling covert or veiled toxicity in online conversations. Prior research has highlighted the difficulty in creating language models that recognize nuanced toxicity such as microaggressions. Our investigations further underscore the difficulty in parsing such labels reliably from raters via crowdsourcing. We introduce an initial dataset, COVERTTOXICITY, which aims to identify and categorize such comments from a refined rater template. Finally, we fine-tune a comment-domain BERT model to classify covertly offensive comments and compare against existing baselines.
Towards Human-Centered Summarization: A Case Study on Financial News (2021)

Recent Deep Learning (DL) summarization models greatly outperform traditional summarization methodologies, generating high-quality summaries. Despite their success, there are still important open issues, such as the limited engagement and trust of users in the whole process. In order to overcome these issues, we reconsider the task of summarization from a human-centered perspective. We propose to integrate a user interface with an underlying DL model, instead of tackling summarization as an isolated task from the end user. We present a novel system, where the user can actively participate in the whole summarization process. We also enable the user to gather insights into the causative factors that drive the model`s behavior, exploiting the self-attention mechanism. We focus on the financial domain, in order to demonstrate the efficiency of generic DL models for domain-specific applications. Our work takes a first step towards a model-interface co-design approach, where DL models evolve along user needs, paving the way towards human-computer text summarization interfaces.
Methods for the Design and Evaluation of HCI+NLP Systems (2021)

HCI and NLP traditionally focus on different evaluation methods. While HCI involves a small number of people directly and deeply, NLP traditionally relies on standardized benchmark evaluations that involve a larger number of people indirectly. We present five methodological proposals at the intersection of HCI and NLP and situate them in the context of ML-based NLP models. Our goal is to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and progress in both fields by emphasizing what the fields can learn from each other.