Understanding hate speech: The HateInsights dataset and model interpretability


Abstract

The persistence of hate speech continues to pose an obstacle in the realm of online social media. Despite the continuous evolution of advanced models for identifying hate speech, the critical dimensions of interpretability and explainability have not received proportional scholarly attention. In this article, we introduce the HateInsights dataset, a groundbreaking benchmark in the field of hate speech datasets, encompassing diverse aspects of this widespread issue. Within our dataset, each individual post undergoes thorough annotation from dual perspectives: firstly, conforming to the established 3-class classification paradigm that includes hate speech, offensive language, and normal discourse; secondly, incorporating rationales that outline specific segments of a post supporting the assigned label (categorized as hate speech, offensive language, or normal discourse). Our exploration yields a significant finding by harnessing cutting-edge state-of-the-art models: even models demonstrating exceptional proficiency in classification tasks yield suboptimal outcomes in crucial explainability metrics, such as model plausibility and faithfulness. Furthermore, our analysis underscores a promising revelation concerning models trained using human-annotated rationales. To facilitate scholarly progress in this realm, we have made both our dataset and codebase accessible to fellow researchers. This initiative aims to encourage collaborative involvement and inspire the advancement of the hate speech detection approach characterized by increased transparency, clarity, and fairness.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.