mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

An Information Retrieval Approach to Building Datasets for Hate Speech Detection

arXiv 2106.09775 ↗First posted 17 Jun 2021cs.CL cs.IRcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Building a benchmark dataset for hate speech detection presents various challenges. Firstly, because hate speech is relatively rare, random sampling of tweets to annotate is very inefficient in finding hate speech. To address this, prior datasets often include only tweets matching known "hate words". However, restricting data to a pre-defined vocabulary may exclude portions of the real-world phenomenon we seek to model. A second challenge is that definitions of hate speech tend to be highly varying and subjective. Annotators having diverse prior notions of hate speech may not only disagree with one another but also struggle to conform to specified labeling guidelines. Our key insight is that the rarity and subjectivity of hate speech are akin to that of relevance in information retrieval (IR). This connection suggests that well-established methodologies for creating IR test collections can be usefully applied to create better benchmark datasets for hate speech. To intelligently and efficiently select which tweets to annotate, we apply standard IR techniques of em pooling and em active learning. To improve both consistency and value of annotations, we apply em task decomposition and em annotator rationale techniques. We share a new benchmark dataset for hate speech detection on Twitter that provides broader coverage of hate than prior datasets. We also show a dramatic drop in accuracy of existing detection models when tested on these broader forms of hate. Annotator rationales we collect not only justify labeling decisions but also enable future work opportunities for dual-supervision and/or explanation generation in modeling. Further details of our approach can be found in the supplementary materials.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 40 of its 124 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2021.

Builds on

40 of 124 references.

References · 40

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  3. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  4. 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
  5. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
  6. 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 724
  7. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
  8. 2020HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detectioncited by 403
  9. 2021Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 388
  10. 2018Large Scale Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Twitter Abusive Behaviorcited by 265
  11. 2020HateCheck: Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection Modelscited by 215
  12. 2016Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scalecited by 208
28 more
  1. 2019Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasetscited by 208
  2. 2018Hate Speech Dataset from a White Supremacy Forumcited by 196
  3. 2017Deep Learning for Hate Speech Detection in Tweetscited by 180
  4. 2019Are We Modeling the Task or the Annotator? An Investigation of Annotator Bias in Natural Language Understanding Datasetscited by 173
  5. 2017No Classification without Representation: Assessing Geodiversity Issues in Open Data Sets for the Developing Worldcited by 152
  6. 2020Directions in Abusive Language Training Data: Garbage In, Garbage Outcited by 139
  7. 2019Multilingual and Multi-Aspect Hate Speech Analysiscited by 133
  8. 2017Measuring the Reliability of Hate Speech Annotations: The Case of the European Refugee Crisiscited by 95
  9. 2015A Deeper Look at Dataset Biascited by 86
  10. 2017Detecting Online Hate Speech Using Context Aware Modelscited by 72
  11. 2019Inferring Which Medical Treatments Work from Reports of Clinical Trialscited by 63
  12. 2018All You Need is "Love": Evading Hate-speech Detectioncited by 56
  13. 2019A Just and Comprehensive Strategy for Using NLP to Address Online Abusecited by 49
  14. 2021Hate Towards the Political Opponent: A Twitter Corpus Study of the 2020 US Elections on the Basis of Offensive Speech and Stance Detectioncited by 45
  15. 2018Aggression-annotated Corpus of Hindi-English Code-mixed Datacited by 40
  16. 2020Stereotypical Bias Removal for Hate Speech Detection Task using Knowledge-based Generalizationscited by 40
  17. 2016Rationale-Augmented Convolutional Neural Networks for Text Classificationcited by 39
  18. 2018Deep Learning for Detecting Cyberbullying Across Multiple Social Media Platformscited by 37
  19. 2019Sampling Bias in Deep Active Classification: An Empirical Studycited by 36
  20. 2017Dual Supervised Learningcited by 33
  21. 2019Do Human Rationales Improve Machine Explanations?cited by 33
  22. 2017Deep Learning for User Comment Moderationcited by 18
  23. 2020Preserving Integrity in Online Social Networkscited by 14
  24. 2015Autonomy and Reliability of Continuous Active Learning for Technology-Assisted Reviewcited by 13
  25. 2015Detection of Cyberbullying Incidents on the Instagram Social Networkcited by 12
  26. 2018Efficient Test Collection Construction via Active Learningcited by 7
  27. 2020Annotating for Hate Speech: The MaNeCo Corpus and Some Input from Critical Discourse Analysiscited by 6
  28. 2020You Are What You Tweet: Profiling Users by Past Tweets to Improve Hate Speech Detectioncited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 5; 2023: 2; 2024: 2.

9 papers.