Search

There is content such as hate speech, offensive, toxic or aggressive documents, which are perceived differently by their consumers. They are commonly identified using classifiers solely based on textual content that generalize pre-agreed meanings of difficult problems. Such models provide the same results for each user, which leads to high misclassification rate observable especially for contentious, aggressive documents. Both document controversy and user nonconformity require new solutions. Therefore, we propose novel personalized approaches that respect individual beliefs expressed by either user conformity-based measures or various embeddings of their previous text annotations. We found that only a few annotations of most controversial documents are enough for all our personalization methods to significantly outperform classic, generalized solutions. The more controversial the content, the greater the gain. The personalized solutions may be used to efficiently filter unwanted aggressive content in the way adjusted to a given person.

Analysis of subjective texts like offensive content or hate speech is a great challenge, especially regarding annotation process. Most of current annotation procedures are aimed at achieving a high level of agreement in order to generate a high quality reference source. However, the annotation guidelines for subjective content may restrict the annotators’ freedom of decision making. Motivated by a moderate annotation agreement in offensive content datasets, we hypothesize that personalized approaches to offensive content identification should be in place. Thus, we propose two novel perspectives of perception: group-based and individual. Using demographics of annotators as well as embeddings of their previous decisions (annotated texts), we are able to train multimodal models (including transformer-based) adjusted to personal or community profiles. Based on the agreement of individuals and groups, we experimentally showed that annotator group agreeability strongly correlates with offensive content recognition quality. The proposed personalized approaches enabled us to create models adaptable to personal user beliefs rather than to agreed offensiveness understanding. Overall, our individualized approaches to offensive content classification outperform classic data-centric methods that generalize offensiveness perception and it refers to all six tested models. Additionally, we developed requirements for annotation procedures, personalization and content processing to make the solutions human-centered.