>
Many online discussion platforms use a content moderation process, where human moderators check user comments for offensive language and other rule violations. It is the moderator's decision which comments to remove from the platform because of violations and which ones to keep. Research so far focused on automating this decision process in the form of supervised machine learning for a classification task. However, even with machine-learned models achieving better classification accuracy than human experts in some scenarios, there is still a reason why human moderators are preferred. In contrast to black-box models, such as neural networks, humans can give explanations for their decision to remove a comment. For example, they can point out which phrase in the comment is offensive or what subtype of offensiveness applies. In this paper, we analyze and compare four attribution-based explanation methods for different offensive language classifiers: an interpretable machine learning model (naive Bayes), a model-agnostic explanation method (LIME), a model-based explanation method (LRP), and a self-explanatory model (LSTM with an attention mechanism). We evaluate these approaches with regard to their explanatory power and their ability to point out which words are most relevant for a classifier's decision. We find that the more complex models achieve better classification accuracy while also providing better explanations than the simpler models.
Watch our new MOOC in German about hate and fake in the Internet ("Trolle, Hass und Fake-News: Wie können wir das Internet retten?") on openHPI (link).
Our work on Measuring and Comparing Dimensionality Reduction Algorithms for Robust Visualisation of Dynamic Text Collections will be presented at CHIIR 2021.
I added some photos from my trip to Hildesheim.
Powered by CMSimple| Template: ge-webdesign.de| Login