Papers › Revisiting Contextual Toxicity Detection in Conversations

Revisiting Contextual Toxicity Detection in Conversations

24 Nov 2021arXiv:2111.12447archive 2025-07-28

Atijit Anuchitanukul, Julia Ive, Lucia Specia

Understanding toxicity in user conversations is undoubtedly an important problem. Addressing "covert" or implicit cases of toxicity is particularly hard and requires context. Very few previous studies have analysed the influence of conversational context in human perception or in automated detection models. We dive deeper into both these directions. We start by analysing existing contextual datasets and come to the conclusion that toxicity labelling by humans is in general influenced by the conversational structure, polarity and topic of the context. We then propose to bring these findings into computational detection models by introducing and evaluating (a) neural architectures for contextual toxicity detection that are aware of the conversational structure, and (b) data augmentation strategies that can help model contextual toxicity detection. Our results have shown the encouraging potential of neural architectures that are aware of the conversation structure. We have also demonstrated that such models can benefit from synthetic data, especially in the social media domain.

PaperPDF

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

No code repository is listed for this paper in the archive or in Syntology's graph.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Data AugmentationToxic Comment Classification

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Toxic Comment Classification CAD ContextRNN F1 on Toxic class 52.5 #1 of 1 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Methods

AWARE

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections