Cited by 163Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSpeech and dialogue systemsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Build it Break it Fix it for Dialogue Safety: Robustness from Adversarial Human Attack

Open access
Dinan, Emily, Humeau, Samuel, Chintagunta, Bharath, Weston, Jason·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)

Abstract

Emily Dinan, Samuel Humeau, Bharath Chintagunta, Jason Weston. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). 2019.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/d19-1461

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The build it, break it, fix it algorithm we use to iteratively train better models A 0 , . . . , A N . In experiments we perform N = 3 iterations of the break it, fix it loop for the single-turn utterance detection task, and a further iteration for the multi-turn task in a dialogue context setting.
Figure 1 The build it, break it, fix it algorithm we use to iteratively train better models A 0 , . . . , A N . In experiments we perform N = 3 iterations of the break it, fix it loop for the single-turn utterance detection task, and a further iteration for the multi-turn task in a dialogue context setting.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. 2018. 6th International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, ICLR 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 30 -May 3, 2018, Conference Track Proceed- ings. OpenReview.net.
  2. Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018. Hotflip: White-box adversarial exam- ples for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Aus- tralia, July 15-20, 2018, Volume 2: Short Papers, pages 31-36. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. 3 https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
  3. Patxi Galán-García, José Gaviria de la Puerta, Car- los Laorden Gómez, Igor Santos, and Pablo García Bringas. 2016. Supervised machine learning for the detection of troll profiles in twitter social network: Application to a real case of cyberbullying. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 24(1):42-53.
  4. Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative ad- versarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2672-2680.
  5. Tommi Gröndahl, Luca Pajola, Mika Juuti, Mauro Conti, and N Asokan. 2018. All you need is" love": Evading hate-speech detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09115. · arXiv
  6. Susan Herring, Kirk Job-Sluder, Rebecca Scheckler, and Sasha Barab. 2002. Searching for safety online: Managing" trolling" in a feminist forum. The infor- mation society, 18(5):371-384.
  7. Robin Jia and Percy Liang. 2017. Adversarial exam- ples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In (Palmer et al., 2017), pages 2021-2031.
  8. Chandra Khatri, Behnam Hedayatnia, Rahul Goel, Anushree Venkatesh, Raefer Gabriel, and Arindam Mandal. 2018. Detecting offensive content in open-domain conversations using two stage semi- supervision. CoRR, abs/1811.12900. · arXiv
  9. Ritesh Kumar, Atul Kr. Ojha, Shervin Malmasi, and Marcos Zampieri. 2018. Benchmarking aggression identification in social media. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Trolling, Aggression and Cyber- bullying (TRAC-2018), pages 1-11, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  10. Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, Tianlin Shi, Sébastien Jean, Alan Ritter, and Dan Jurafsky. 2017. Adversarial learning for neural dialogue generation. In (Palmer et al., 2017), pages 2157-2169.
  11. Martha Palmer, Rebecca Hwa, and Sebastian Riedel, editors. 2017. Proceedings of the 2017 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 9-11, 2017. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
  12. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christo- pher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532- 1543.
  13. Andrew Ruef, Michael Hicks, James Parker, Dave Levin, Michelle L Mazurek, and Piotr Mardziel. 2016. Build it, break it, fix it: Contesting secure development. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communica- tions Security, pages 690-703. ACM.
  14. Pnina Shachaf and Noriko Hara. 2010. Beyond vandal- ism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information Sci- ence, 36(3):357-370.
  15. Ellery Wulczyn, Nithum Thain, and Lucas Dixon. 2017. Ex machina: Personal attacks seen at scale. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017, Perth, Australia, April 3-7, 2017, pages 1391-1399. ACM. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2018. Per- sonalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, ACL 2018, Melbourne, Australia, July 15- 20, 2018, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 2204-2213. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dinan, E., Humeau, S., Chintagunta, B., & Weston, J.
Affiliations
  • Meta (Israel) (IL)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)
Published
2019
Pages
4536-4545
OpenAlex
W2969117066
Cited by
161
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 2
FWCI
8.51
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
adversarial attacks, robustness, chatbots, adversarial training, dialogue systems

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