Cited by 38Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningTopic Modeling

Human-centered neural reasoning for subjective content processing: Hate speech, emotions, and humor

Open access
Kazienko, Przemysław, Bielaniewicz, Julita, Gruza, Marcin, Kanclerz, Kamil, Karanowski, Konrad, Miłkowski, Piotr, Kocoń, Jan·2023·Information Fusion

Abstract

Some tasks in content processing, e.g., natural language processing (NLP), like hate or offensive speech and emotional or funny text detection, are subjective by nature. Each human may perceive some content individually. The existing reasoning methods commonly rely on agreed output values, the same for all recipients. We propose fundamentally different – personalized solutions applicable to any subjective NLP task. Our five new deep learning models take into account not only the textual content but also the opinions and beliefs of a given person. They differ in their approaches to learning Human Bias (HuBi) and fusion with content (text) representation. The experiments were carried out on 14 tasks related to offensive, emotional, and humorous texts. Our personalized HuBi methods radically outperformed the generalized ones for all NLP problems. Personalization also has a greater impact on reasoning quality than commonly explored pre-trained and fine-tuned language models. We discovered a high correlation between human bias calculated using our dedicated formula and that learned by the model. Multi-task solutions achieved better outcomes than single-task architectures. Human and word embeddings also provided additional insights.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.inffus.2023.01.010

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is difficult to identify universal ground truth in tasks such as predicting emotions or offensiveness of text, especially in personalized context.

    “At the same time, it is difficult to identify universal ground truth in tasks such as predicting emotions or offensiveness of text, especially in the personalized context [20, 21, 22].”

    From ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none (2023) · cites this paper as [22]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kazienko, P., Bielaniewicz, J., Gruza, M., Kanclerz, K., Karanowski, K., Miłkowski, P., & Kocoń, J.
Affiliations
Wrocław University of Science and Technology (PL)
Corresponding author
Kazienko, Przemysław
Venue
Information Fusion
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-06
Volume
94
Pages
43-65
ISSN
1566-2535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4315864754
Cited by
38
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15
FWCI
3.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Information Fusion (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Horizon Europe (101086321)
  • Narodowe Centrum Nauki (2021/41/B/ST6/04471)
  • Ministerstwo Edukacji i Nauki
  • Politechnika Wrocławska
  • European Regional Development Fund (POIR.04.02.00-00C002/19)
  • Department of Artificial Intelligence, Korea University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
human bias, hate speech detection, emotion recognition, humor detection, multi-task learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review