On Using Active Learning and Self-Training when Mining Performance Discussions on Stack Overflow

Abundant data is the key to successful machine learning. However, supervised learning requires annotated data that are often hard to obtain. In a classification task with limited resources, Active Learning (AL) promises to guide annotators to examples that bring the most value for a classifier. AL can be successfully combined with self-training, i.e., extending a training set with the unlabelled examples for which a classifier is the most certain. We report our experiences on using AL in a systematic manner to train an SVM classifier for Stack Overflow posts discussing performance of software components. We show that the training examples deemed as the most valuable to the classifier are also the most difficult for humans to annotate. Despite carefully evolved annotation criteria, we report low inter-rater agreement, but we also propose mitigation strategies. Finally, based on one annotator's work, we show that self-training can improve the classification accuracy. We conclude the paper by discussing implication for future text miners aspiring to use AL and self-training.Comment: Preprint of paper accepted for the Proc. of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 201

Active learning and the Irish treebank

We report on our ongoing work in developing the Irish Dependency Treebank, describe the results of two Inter annotator Agreement (IAA) studies, demonstrate improvements in annotation consistency which have a knock-on effect on parsing accuracy, and present the final set of dependency labels. We then go on to investigate the extent to which active learning can play a role in treebank and parser development by comparing an active learning bootstrapping approach to a passive approach in which sentences are chosen at random for manual revision. We show that active learning outperforms passive learning, but when annotation effort is taken into account, it is not clear how much of an advantage the active learning approach has. Finally, we present results which suggest that adding automatic parses to the training data along with manually revised parses in an active learning setup does not greatly affect parsing accuracy

Analyzing Dataset Annotation Quality Management in the Wild

Data quality is crucial for training accurate, unbiased, and trustworthy machine learning models and their correct evaluation. Recent works, however, have shown that even popular datasets used to train and evaluate state-of-the-art models contain a non-negligible amount of erroneous annotations, bias or annotation artifacts. There exist best practices and guidelines regarding annotation projects. But to the best of our knowledge, no large-scale analysis has been performed as of yet on how quality management is actually conducted when creating natural language datasets and whether these recommendations are followed. Therefore, we first survey and summarize recommended quality management practices for dataset creation as described in the literature and provide suggestions on how to apply them. Then, we compile a corpus of 591 scientific publications introducing text datasets and annotate it for quality-related aspects, such as annotator management, agreement, adjudication or data validation. Using these annotations, we then analyze how quality management is conducted in practice. We find that a majority of the annotated publications apply good or very good quality management. However, we deem the effort of 30% of the works as only subpar. Our analysis also shows common errors, especially with using inter-annotator agreement and computing annotation error rates

Spam elimination and bias correction : ensuring label quality in crowdsourced tasks.

Crowdsourcing is proposed as a powerful mechanism for accomplishing large scale tasks via anonymous workers online. It has been demonstrated as an effective and important approach for collecting labeled data in application domains which require human intelligence, such as image labeling, video annotation, natural language processing, etc. Despite the promises, one big challenge still exists in crowdsourcing systems: the difficulty of controlling the quality of crowds. The workers usually have diverse education levels, personal preferences, and motivations, leading to unknown work performance while completing a crowdsourced task. Among them, some are reliable, and some might provide noisy feedback. It is intrinsic to apply worker filtering approach to crowdsourcing applications, which recognizes and tackles noisy workers, in order to obtain high-quality labels. The presented work in this dissertation provides discussions in this area of research, and proposes efficient probabilistic based worker filtering models to distinguish varied types of poor quality workers. Most of the existing work in literature in the field of worker filtering either only concentrates on binary labeling tasks, or fails to separate the low quality workers whose label errors can be corrected from the other spam workers (with label errors which cannot be corrected). As such, we first propose a Spam Removing and De-biasing Framework (SRDF), to deal with the worker filtering procedure in labeling tasks with numerical label scales. The developed framework can detect spam workers and biased workers separately. The biased workers are defined as those who show tendencies of providing higher (or lower) labels than truths, and their errors are able to be corrected. To tackle the biasing problem, an iterative bias detection approach is introduced to recognize the biased workers. The spam filtering algorithm proposes to eliminate three types of spam workers, including random spammers who provide random labels, uniform spammers who give same labels for most of the items, and sloppy workers who offer low accuracy labels. Integrating the spam filtering and bias detection approaches into aggregating algorithms, which infer truths from labels obtained from crowds, can lead to high quality consensus results. The common characteristic of random spammers and uniform spammers is that they provide useless feedback without making efforts for a labeling task. Thus, it is not necessary to distinguish them separately. In addition, the removal of sloppy workers has great impact on the detection of biased workers, with the SRDF framework. To combat these problems, a different way of worker classification is presented in this dissertation. In particular, the biased workers are classified as a subcategory of sloppy workers. Finally, an ITerative Self Correcting - Truth Discovery (ITSC-TD) framework is then proposed, which can reliably recognize biased workers in ordinal labeling tasks, based on a probabilistic based bias detection model. ITSC-TD estimates true labels through applying an optimization based truth discovery method, which minimizes overall label errors by assigning different weights to workers. The typical tasks posted on popular crowdsourcing platforms, such as MTurk, are simple tasks, which are low in complexity, independent, and require little time to complete. Complex tasks, however, in many cases require the crowd workers to possess specialized skills in task domains. As a result, this type of task is more inclined to have the problem of poor quality of feedback from crowds, compared to simple tasks. As such, we propose a multiple views approach, for the purpose of obtaining high quality consensus labels in complex labeling tasks. In this approach, each view is defined as a labeling critique or rubric, which aims to guide the workers to become aware of the desirable work characteristics or goals. Combining the view labels results in the overall estimated labels for each item. The multiple views approach is developed under the hypothesis that workers\u27 performance might differ from one view to another. Varied weights are then assigned to different views for each worker. Additionally, the ITSC-TD framework is integrated into the multiple views model to achieve high quality estimated truths for each view. Next, we propose a Semi-supervised Worker Filtering (SWF) model to eliminate spam workers, who assign random labels for each item. The SWF approach conducts worker filtering with a limited set of gold truths available as priori. Each worker is associated with a spammer score, which is estimated via the developed semi-supervised model, and low quality workers are efficiently detected by comparing the spammer score with a predefined threshold value. The efficiency of all the developed frameworks and models are demonstrated on simulated and real-world data sets. By comparing the proposed frameworks to a set of state-of-art methodologies, such as expectation maximization based aggregating algorithm, GLAD and optimization based truth discovery approach, in the domain of crowdsourcing, up to 28.0% improvement can be obtained for the accuracy of true label estimation

Fake Opinion Detection: How Similar are Crowdsourced Datasets to Real Data?

[EN] Identifying deceptive online reviews is a challenging tasks for Natural Language Processing (NLP). Collecting corpora for the task is difficult, because normally it is not possible to know whether reviews are genuine. A common workaround involves collecting (supposedly) truthful reviews online and adding them to a set of deceptive reviews obtained through crowdsourcing services. Models trained this way are generally successful at discriminating between `genuine¿ online reviews and the crowdsourced deceptive reviews. It has been argued that the deceptive reviews obtained via crowdsourcing are very different from real fake reviews, but the claim has never been properly tested. In this paper, we compare (false) crowdsourced reviews with a set of `real¿ fake reviews published on line. We evaluate their degree of similarity and their usefulness in training models for the detection of untrustworthy reviews. We find that the deceptive reviews collected via crowdsourcing are significantly different from the fake reviews published online. In the case of the artificially produced deceptive texts, it turns out that their domain similarity with the targets affects the models¿ performance, much more than their untruthfulness. This suggests that the use of crowdsourced datasets for opinion spam detection may not result in models applicable to the real task of detecting deceptive reviews. As an alternative method to create large-size datasets for the fake reviews detection task, we propose methods based on the probabilistic annotation of unlabeled texts, relying on the use of meta-information generally available on the e-commerce sites. Such methods are independent from the content of the reviews and allow to train reliable models for the detection of fake reviews.Leticia Cagnina thanks CONICET for the continued financial support. This work was funded by MINECO/FEDER (Grant No. SomEMBED TIN2015-71147-C2-1-P). The work of Paolo Rosso was partially funded by the MISMIS-FAKEnHATE Spanish MICINN research project (PGC2018-096212-B-C31). Massimo Poesio was in part supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (Grant Number ES/M010236/1).Fornaciari, T.; Cagnina, L.; Rosso, P.; Poesio, M. (2020). Fake Opinion Detection: How Similar are Crowdsourced Datasets to Real Data?. Language Resources and Evaluation. 54(4):1019-1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-020-09486-5S10191058544Baeza-Yates, R. (2018). Bias on the web. Communications of the ACM, 61(6), 54–61.Banerjee, S., & Chua, A. Y. (2014). Applauses in hotel reviews: Genuine or deceptive? In: Science and Information Conference (SAI), 2014 (pp. 938–942). New York: IEEE.Bhargava, R., Baoni, A., & Sharma, Y. (2018). Composite sequential modeling for identifying fake reviews. Journal of Intelligent Systems,. https://doi.org/10.1515/jisys-2017-0501.Bickel, P. J., & Doksum, K. A. (2015). Mathematical statistics: Basic ideas and selected topics (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(Jan), 993–1022.Blum, A., & Mitchell, T. (1998). Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual conference on computational learning theory (pp. 92–100). New York: ACM.Cagnina, L. C., & Rosso, P. (2017). Detecting deceptive opinions: Intra and cross-domain classification using an efficient representation. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 25(Suppl. 2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488517400165.Cardoso, E. F., Silva, R. M., & Almeida, T. A. (2018). Towards automatic filtering of fake reviews. Neurocomputing, 309, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.074.Carpenter, B. (2008). Multilevel bayesian models of categorical data annotation. Retrieved from http://lingpipe.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/carp-bayesian-multilevel-annotation.pdf.Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20, 273–297.Costa, P. T., & MacCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.Dawid, A. P., & Skene, A. M. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm. Applied Statistics, 28(1), 20–28.Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.Elkan, C., & Noto, K. (2008). Learning classifiers from only positive and unlabeled data. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 213–220). New York: ACM.Fei, G., Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., & Ghosh, R. (2013). Exploiting burstiness in reviews for review spammer detection. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (Vol. 13, pp. 175–184).Feng, S., Banerjee, R., & Choi, Y. (2012). Syntactic stylometry for deception detection. In: Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (Vol. 2: Short Papers, pp. 171–175). Jeju Island: Association for Computational Linguistics.Forman, G. (2003). An extensive empirical study of feature selection metrics for text classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 1289–1305.Fornaciari, T., & Poesio, M. (2013). Automatic deception detection in Italian court cases. Artificial intelligence and law, 21(3), 303–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-013-9140-4.Fornaciari, T., & Poesio, M. (2014). Identifying fake amazon reviews as learning from crowds. In: Proceedings of the 14th conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 279–287). Gothenburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/E14-1030.Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models., Analytical methods for social research Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Graves, A., Jaitly, N., & Mohamed, A. R. (2013). Hybrid speech recognition with deep bidirectional LSTM. In: 2013 IEEE workshop on automatic speech recognition and understanding (ASRU) (pp. 273–278). New York: IEEE.Hernández-Castañeda, Á., & Calvo, H. (2017). Deceptive text detection using continuous semantic space models. Intelligent Data Analysis, 21(3), 679–695.Hernández Fusilier, D., Guzmán, R., Móntes y Gomez, M., & Rosso, P. (2013). Using pu-learning to detect deceptive opinion spam. In: Proc. of the 4th workshop on computational approaches to subjectivity, sentiment and social media analysis (pp. 38–45).Hernández Fusilier, D., Montes-y Gómez, M., Rosso, P., & Cabrera, R. G. (2015). Detecting positive and negative deceptive opinions using pu-learning. Information Processing & Management, 51(4), 433–443.Hovy, D. (2016). The enemy in your own camp: How well can we detect statistically-generated fake reviews–an adversarial study. In: The 54th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (p 351).Jelinek, F., Lafferty, J. D., & Mercer, R. L. (1992). Basic methods of probabilistic context free grammars. Speech recognition and understanding (pp. 345–360). New York: Springer.Jindal, N., & Liu, B. (2008). Opinion spam and analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 219–230). New York: ACM.Karatzoglou, A., Meyer, D., & Hornik, K. (2006). Support vector machines in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 15(9), 1–28.Kim, S., Lee, S., Park, D., & Kang, J. (2017). Constructing and evaluating a novel crowdsourcing-based paraphrased opinion spam dataset. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web (pp. 827–836). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.Li, F., Huang, M., Yang, Y., & Zhu, X. (2011). Learning to identify review spam. IJCAI Proceedings-International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 22(3), 2488–2493.Li, H., Chen, Z., Liu, B., Wei, X., & Shao, J. (2014a). Spotting fake reviews via collective positive-unlabeled learning. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM) (pp. 899–904). New York: IEEE.Li, H., Fei, G., Wang, S., Liu, B., Shao, W., Mukherjee, A., & Shao, J. (2017). Bimodal distribution and co-bursting in review spam detection. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web (pp. 1063–1072). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.Li, H., Liu, B., Mukherjee, A., & Shao, J. (2014b). Spotting fake reviews using positive-unlabeled learning. Computación y Sistemas, 18(3), 467–475.Li, J., Ott, M., Cardie, C., & Hovy, E. H. (2014c). Towards a general rule for identifying deceptive opinion spam. In: ACL (Vol. 1, pp. 1566–1576).Lin, C. H., Hsu, P. Y., Cheng, M. S., Lei, H. T., & Hsu, M. C. (2017). Identifying deceptive review comments with rumor and lie theories. In: International conference in swarm intelligence (pp. 412–420). New York: Springer.Liu, B., Dai, Y., Li, X., Lee, W. S., & Yu, P. S. (2003). Building text classifiers using positive and unlabeled examples. In: Third IEEE international conference on data mining (pp. 179–186). New York: IEEE.Liu, B., Lee, W. S., Yu, P. S., & Li, X. (2002). Partially supervised classification of text documents. ICML, 2, 387–394.Martens, D., & Maalej, W. (2019). Towards understanding and detecting fake reviews in app stores. Empirical Software Engineering,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09706-9.Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:13013781.Mukherjee, A., Kumar, A., Liu, B., Wang, J., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., & Ghosh, R. (2013a). Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 632–640) New York: ACM.Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., & Glance, N. S. (2013b). What yelp fake review filter might be doing? In: Proceedings of the seventh international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media.Negri, M., Bentivogli, L., Mehdad, Y., Giampiccolo, D., & Marchetti, A. (2011). Divide and conquer: Crowdsourcing the creation of cross-lingual textual entailment corpora. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 670–679). Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Ott, M., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Negative deceptive opinion spam. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies (pp. 497–501).Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., & Hancock, J. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies (pp. 309–319). Portland, Oregon: Association for Computational Linguistics.Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC): LIWC2001. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1532–1543).Raykar, V. C., Yu, S., Zhao, L. H., Valadez, G. H., Florin, C., Bogoni, L., et al. (2010). Learning from crowds. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 1297–1322.Ren, Y., & Ji, D. (2017). Neural networks for deceptive opinion spam detection: An empirical study. Information Sciences, 385, 213–224.Rout, J. K., Dalmia, A., Choo, K. K. R., Bakshi, S., & Jena, S. K. (2017). Revisiting semi-supervised learning for online deceptive review detection. IEEE Access, 5(1), 1319–1327.Saini, M., & Sharan, A. (2017). Ensemble learning to find deceptive reviews using personality traits and reviews specific features. Journal of Digital Information Management, 12(2), 84–94.Salloum, W., Edwards, E., Ghaffarzadegan, S., Suendermann-Oeft, D., & Miller, M. (2017). Crowdsourced continuous improvement of medical speech recognition. In: The AAAI-17 workshop on crowdsourcing, deep learning, and artificial intelligence agents.Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In: Proceedings of international conference on new methods in language processing. Retrieved from http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/ftp/pub/corpora/tree-tagger1.pdf.Shehnepoor, S., Salehi, M., Farahbakhsh, R., & Crespi, N. (2017). Netspam: A network-based spam detection framework for reviews in online social media. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 12(7), 1585–1595.Skeppstedt, M., Peldszus, A., & Stede, M. (2018). More or less controlled elicitation of argumentative text: Enlarging a microtext corpus via crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the 5th workshop on argument mining (pp. 155–163).Strapparava, C., & Mihalcea, R. (2009). The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. In: Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics and the 4th international joint conference on natural language processing.Streitfeld, D. (August $$25{{\rm th}}$$, 2012). The best book reviews money can buy. The New York Times.Whitehill, J., Wu, T., Bergsma, F., Movellan, J. R., & Ruvolo, P. L. (2009). Whose vote should count more: Optimal integration of labels from labelers of unknown expertise. Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 2035–2043). Cambridge: MIT Press.Xie, S., Wang, G., Lin, S., & Yu, P. S. (2012). Review spam detection via temporal pattern discovery. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp 823–831). New York: ACM.Yang, Y., & Liu, X. (1999). A re-examination of text categorization methods. In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, SIGIR ’99 (pp. 42–49). New York: ACM.Zhang, W., Bu, C., Yoshida, T., & Zhang, S. (2016). Cospa: A co-training approach for spam review identification with support vector machine. Information, 7(1), 12.Zhang, W., Du, Y., Yoshida, T., & Wang, Q. (2018). DRI-RCNN: An approach to deceptive review identification using recurrent convolutional neural network. Information Processing & Management, 54(4), 576–592.Zhou, L., Shi, Y., & Zhang, D. (2008). A Statistical Language Modeling Approach to Online Deception Detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 20(8), 1077–1081

A Full Probabilistic Model for Yes/No Type Crowdsourcing in Multi-Class Classification

Crowdsourcing has become widely used in supervised scenarios where training sets are scarce and difficult to obtain. Most crowdsourcing models in the literature assume labelers can provide answers to full questions. In classification contexts, full questions require a labeler to discern among all possible classes. Unfortunately, discernment is not always easy in realistic scenarios. Labelers may not be experts in differentiating all classes. In this work, we provide a full probabilistic model for a shorter type of queries. Our shorter queries only require "yes" or "no" responses. Our model estimates a joint posterior distribution of matrices related to labelers' confusions and the posterior probability of the class of every object. We developed an approximate inference approach, using Monte Carlo Sampling and Black Box Variational Inference, which provides the derivation of the necessary gradients. We built two realistic crowdsourcing scenarios to test our model. The first scenario queries for irregular astronomical time-series. The second scenario relies on the image classification of animals. We achieved results that are comparable with those of full query crowdsourcing. Furthermore, we show that modeling labelers' failures plays an important role in estimating true classes. Finally, we provide the community with two real datasets obtained from our crowdsourcing experiments. All our code is publicly available.Comment: SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM19), 9 official pages, 5 supplementary page

LENS: A Learnable Evaluation Metric for Text Simplification

Training learnable metrics using modern language models has recently emerged as a promising method for the automatic evaluation of machine translation. However, existing human evaluation datasets for text simplification have limited annotations that are based on unitary or outdated models, making them unsuitable for this approach. To address these issues, we introduce the SimpEval corpus that contains: SimpEval_past, comprising 12K human ratings on 2.4K simplifications of 24 past systems, and SimpEval_2022, a challenging simplification benchmark consisting of over 1K human ratings of 360 simplifications including GPT-3.5 generated text. Training on SimpEval, we present LENS, a Learnable Evaluation Metric for Text Simplification. Extensive empirical results show that LENS correlates much better with human judgment than existing metrics, paving the way for future progress in the evaluation of text simplification. We also introduce Rank and Rate, a human evaluation framework that rates simplifications from several models in a list-wise manner using an interactive interface, which ensures both consistency and accuracy in the evaluation process and is used to create the SimpEval datasets.Comment: Accepted at ACL 202

Towards the Automatic Processing of Language Registers: Semi-supervisedly Built Corpus and Classifier for French

International audienceLanguage registers are a strongly perceptible characteristic of texts and speeches. However, they are still poorly studied in natural language processing. In this paper, we present a semi-supervised approach which jointly builds a corpus of texts labeled in registers and an associated classifier. This approach relies on a small initial seed of expert data. After massively retrieving web pages, it iteratively alternates the training of an intermediate classifier and the annotation of new texts to augment the labeled corpus. The approach is applied to the casual, neutral, and formal registers, leading to a 750M word corpus and a final neural classifier with an acceptable performance

Collective moderation of hate, toxicity, and extremity in online discussions

How can citizens moderate hate, toxicity, and extremism in online discourse? We analyze a large corpus of more than 130,000 discussions on German Twitter over the turbulent four years marked by the migrant crisis and political upheavals. With a help of human annotators, language models, machine learning classifiers, and longitudinal statistical analyses, we discern the dynamics of different dimensions of discourse. We find that expressing simple opinions, not necessarily supported by facts but also without insults, relates to the least hate, toxicity, and extremity of speech and speakers in subsequent discussions. Sarcasm also helps in achieving those outcomes, in particular in the presence of organized extreme groups. More constructive comments such as providing facts or exposing contradictions can backfire and attract more extremity. Mentioning either outgroups or ingroups is typically related to a deterioration of discourse in the long run. A pronounced emotional tone, either negative such as anger or fear, or positive such as enthusiasm and pride, also leads to worse outcomes. Going beyond one-shot analyses on smaller samples of discourse, our findings have implications for the successful management of online commons through collective civic moderation