PreprintCited by 17Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionTopic ModelingEthics and Social Impacts of AI

What's in the Box? A Preliminary Analysis of Undesirable Content in the Common Crawl Corpus

Open access
Luccioni, Alexandra Sasha, Viviano, Joseph D.·2021·arXiv

Abstract

Whereas much of the success of the current generation of neural language models has been driven by increasingly large training corpora, relatively little research has been dedicated to analyzing these massive sources of textual data. In this exploratory analysis, we delve deeper into the Common Crawl, a colossal web corpus that is extensively used for training language models. We find that it contains a significant amount of undesirable content, including hate speech and sexually explicit content, even after filtering procedures. We discuss the potential impacts of this content on language models and conclude with future research directions and a more mindful approach to corpus collection and analysis.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2105.02732

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Very recent research has begun to analyze dataset values, question assumptions around dataset use, unpack what is represented in ML datasets, and establish basics of how an organized dataset lifecycle might proceed.

    “Very recent research - most published within the last year - has begun to analyze dataset values [18, 40], question assumptions around dataset use [100], unpack what is represented in ML datasets [43, 88, 124] and establish basics of how an organized dataset lifecycle might proceed [74].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., Gupta, P., Joulin, A., and Mikolov, T. (2018). Learning word vectors for 157 languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06893 . · arXiv
  2. Polpinij, J., Chotthanom, A., Sibunruang, C., Chamchong, R., and Puangpronpitag, S. (2006). Contentbased text classifiers for pornographic web filtering. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics , volume 2, pages 1481-1485. IEEE.
  3. Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., and Sutskever, I. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog , 1(8):9.
  4. Vidgen, B. and Derczynski, L. (2020). Directions in abusive language training data: Garbage in, garbage out. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.01670 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luccioni, A. S., & Viviano, J. D.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3169705981
Cited by
17
References
71
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
Common Crawl, web corpus, hate speech, sexually explicit material, training data quality, corpus filtering, neural language models, training data bias

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