mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Explainable Abuse Detection as Intent Classification and Slot Filling

arXiv 2210.02659 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2022cs.CLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

To proactively offer social media users a safe online experience, there is a need for systems that can detect harmful posts and promptly alert platform moderators. In order to guarantee the enforcement of a consistent policy, moderators are provided with detailed guidelines. In contrast, most state-of-the-art models learn what abuse is from labelled examples and as a result base their predictions on spurious cues, such as the presence of group identifiers, which can be unreliable. In this work we introduce the concept of policy-aware abuse detection, abandoning the unrealistic expectation that systems can reliably learn which phenomena constitute abuse from inspecting the data alone. We propose a machine-friendly representation of the policy that moderators wish to enforce, by breaking it down into a collection of intents and slots. We collect and annotate a dataset of 3,535 English posts with such slots, and show how architectures for intent classification and slot filling can be used for abuse detection, while providing a rationale for model decisions.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2022.

Builds on

24 of 41 references.

References · 24

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  3. 2019Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Languagecited by 377
  4. 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 306
  5. 2018Large Scale Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Twitter Abusive Behaviorcited by 265
  6. 2020Learning from the Worst: Dynamically Generated Datasets to Improve Online Hate Detectioncited by 217
  7. 2020HateCheck: Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection Modelscited by 215
  8. 2021MultiVerS: Improving scientific claim verification with weak supervision and full-document contextcited by 140
  9. 2019Multilingual and Multi-Aspect Hate Speech Analysiscited by 133
  10. 2017Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtaskscited by 115
  11. 2018Coarse-to-Fine Decoding for Neural Semantic Parsingcited by 110
  12. 2018Semantic Parsing for Task Oriented Dialog using Hierarchical Representationscited by 101
12 more
  1. 2017Measuring the Reliability of Hate Speech Annotations: The Case of the European Refugee Crisiscited by 95
  2. 2019A BERT-Based Transfer Learning Approach for Hate Speech Detection in Online Social Mediacited by 95
  3. 2020Contextualizing Hate Speech Classifiers with Post-hoc Explanationcited by 84
  4. 2019Make Up Your Mind! Adversarial Generation of Inconsistent Natural Language Explanationscited by 71
  5. 2018Thou shalt not hate: Countering Online Hate Speechcited by 64
  6. 2020Demographics Should Not Be the Reason of Toxicity: Mitigating Discrimination in Text Classifications with Instance Weightingcited by 41
  7. 2020Conversational Semantic Parsingcited by 39
  8. 2019Tackling Online Abuse: A Survey of Automated Abuse Detection Methodscited by 33
  9. 2021Intent Classification and Slot Filling for Privacy Policiescited by 18
  10. 2022Necessity and Sufficiency for Explaining Text Classifiers: A Case Study in Hate Speech Detectioncited by 18
  11. 2020A Legal Approach to Hate Speech: Operationalizing the EU's Legal Framework against the Expression of Hatred as an NLP Taskcited by 11
  12. 2021A Neighbourhood Framework for Resource-Lean Content Flaggingcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 5; 2025: 1; 2026: 4.

11 papers.