Mugdha Pandya

Matt Canute, Mali Jin, hannah holtzclaw et al.

Agonism plays a vital role in democratic dialogue by fostering diverse perspectives and robust discussions. Within the realm of online conflict there is another type: hateful antagonism, which undermines constructive dialogue. Detecting conflict online is central to platform moderation and monetization. It is also vital for democratic dialogue, but only when it takes the form of agonism. To model these two types of conflict, we collected Twitter conversations related to trending controversial topics. We introduce a comprehensive annotation schema for labelling different dimensions of conflict in the conversations, such as the source of conflict, the target, and the rhetorical strategies deployed. Using this schema, we annotated approximately 4,000 conversations with multiple labels. We then trained both logistic regression and transformer-based models on the dataset, incorporating context from the conversation, including the number of participants and the structure of the interactions. Results show that contextual labels are helpful in identifying conflict and make the models robust to variations in topic. Our research contributes a conceptualization of different dimensions of conflict, a richly annotated dataset, and promising results that can contribute to content moderation.

Mugdha Pandya, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Diana Maynard

Resolving disagreement in manual annotation typically consists of removing unreliable annotators and using a label aggregation strategy such as majority vote or expert opinion to resolve disagreement. These may have the side-effect of silencing or under-representing minority but equally valid opinions. In this paper, we study the impact of standard label aggregation strategies on minority opinion representation in sexism detection. We investigate the quality and value of minority annotations, and then examine their effect on the class distributions in gold labels, as well as how this affects the behaviour of models trained on the resulting datasets. Finally, we discuss the potential biases introduced by each method and how they can be amplified by the models.

Mugdha Pandya, Mali Jin, Kalina Bontcheva et al.

Numerous politicians use social media platforms, particularly X, to engage with their constituents. This interaction allows constituents to pose questions and offer feedback but also exposes politicians to a barrage of hostile responses, especially given the anonymity afforded by social media. They are typically targeted in relation to their governmental role, but the comments also tend to attack their personal identity. This can discredit politicians and reduce public trust in the government. It can also incite anger and disrespect, leading to offline harm and violence. While numerous models exist for detecting hostility in general, they lack the specificity required for political contexts. Furthermore, addressing hostility towards politicians demands tailored approaches due to the distinct language and issues inherent to each country (e.g., Brexit for the UK). To bridge this gap, we construct a dataset of 3,320 English tweets spanning a two-year period manually annotated for hostility towards UK MPs. Our dataset also captures the targeted identity characteristics (race, gender, religion, none) in hostile tweets. We perform linguistic and topical analyses to delve into the unique content of the UK political data. Finally, we evaluate the performance of pre-trained language models and large language models on binary hostility detection and multi-class targeted identity type classification tasks. Our study offers valuable data and insights for future research on the prevalence and nature of politics-related hostility specific to the UK.

Gavin Abercrombie, Amanda Cercas Curry, Mugdha Pandya et al.

Technology companies have produced varied responses to concerns about the effects of the design of their conversational AI systems. Some have claimed that their voice assistants are in fact not gendered or human-like -- despite design features suggesting the contrary. We compare these claims to user perceptions by analysing the pronouns they use when referring to AI assistants. We also examine systems' responses and the extent to which they generate output which is gendered and anthropomorphic. We find that, while some companies appear to be addressing the ethical concerns raised, in some cases, their claims do not seem to hold true. In particular, our results show that system outputs are ambiguous as to the humanness of the systems, and that users tend to personify and gender them as a result.

Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant, Rebecca Marchant, Ricardo Muñoz Sanchez et al.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems learn harmful societal biases that cause them to amplify inequality as they are deployed in more and more situations. To guide efforts at debiasing these systems, the NLP community relies on a variety of metrics that quantify bias in models. Some of these metrics are intrinsic, measuring bias in word embedding spaces, and some are extrinsic, measuring bias in downstream tasks that the word embeddings enable. Do these intrinsic and extrinsic metrics correlate with each other? We compare intrinsic and extrinsic metrics across hundreds of trained models covering different tasks and experimental conditions. Our results show no reliable correlation between these metrics that holds in all scenarios across tasks and languages. We urge researchers working on debiasing to focus on extrinsic measures of bias, and to make using these measures more feasible via creation of new challenge sets and annotated test data. To aid this effort, we release code, a new intrinsic metric, and an annotated test set focused on gender bias in hate speech.