mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Learning from data in the mixed adversarial non-adversarial case: Finding the helpers and ignoring the trolls

arXiv 2208.03295 ↗First posted 5 Aug 2022cs.CL cs.AIcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The promise of interaction between intelligent conversational agents and humans is that models can learn from such feedback in order to improve. Unfortunately, such exchanges in the wild will not always involve human utterances that are benign or of high quality, and will include a mixture of engaged (helpers) and unengaged or even malicious users (trolls). In this work we study how to perform robust learning in such an environment. We introduce a benchmark evaluation, SafetyMix, which can evaluate methods that learn safe vs. toxic language in a variety of adversarial settings to test their robustness. We propose and analyze several mitigating learning algorithms that identify trolls either at the example or at the user level. Our main finding is that user-based methods, that take into account that troll users will exhibit adversarial behavior across multiple examples, work best in a variety of settings on our benchmark. We then test these methods in a further real-life setting of conversations collected during deployment, with similar results.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2022.

Builds on

23 of 47 references.

References · 23

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  3. 2020Learning from Noisy Labels with Deep Neural Networks: A Surveycited by 582
  4. 2021Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLPcited by 459
  5. 2017Robust Loss Functions under Label Noise for Deep Neural Networkscited by 443
  6. 2014Training Deep Neural Networks on Noisy Labels with Bootstrappingcited by 322
  7. 2017Decoupling "when to update" from "how to update"cited by 230
  8. 2016Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scalecited by 210
  9. 2019Build it Break it Fix it for Dialogue Safety: Robustness from Adversarial Human Attackcited by 176
  10. 2020Recipes for Safety in Open-domain Chatbotscited by 170
  11. 2019Queens are Powerful too: Mitigating Gender Bias in Dialogue Generationcited by 152
  12. 2019Peer Loss Functions: Learning from Noisy Labels without Knowing Noise Ratescited by 142
11 more
  1. 2019Learning From Noisy Labels By Regularized Estimation Of Annotator Confusioncited by 127
  2. 2019Learning from Dialogue after Deployment: Feed Yourself, Chatbot!cited by 102
  3. 2020Continual Learning in Task-Oriented Dialogue Systemscited by 83
  4. 2021Anticipating Safety Issues in E2E Conversational AI: Framework and Toolingcited by 78
  5. 2018Deep Bilevel Learningcited by 49
  6. 2016Dialogue Learning With Human-In-The-Loopcited by 46
  7. 2020Open-Domain Conversational Agents: Current Progress, Open Problems, and Future Directionscited by 34
  8. 2015A Survey of Available Corpora for Building Data-Driven Dialogue Systemscited by 33
  9. 2020Deploying Lifelong Open-Domain Dialogue Learningcited by 17
  10. 2021A Survey of NLP-Related Crowdsourcing HITs: what works and what does notcited by 15
  11. 2019Hunting for Troll Comments in News Community Forumscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 6; 2024: 1.

11 papers.