13,454 research outputs found

    Authorship attribution in portuguese using character N-grams

    Get PDF
    For the Authorship Attribution (AA) task, character n-grams are considered among the best predictive features. In the English language, it has also been shown that some types of character n-grams perform better than others. This paper tackles the AA task in Portuguese by examining the performance of different types of character n-grams, and various combinations of them. The paper also experiments with different feature representations and machine-learning algorithms. Moreover, the paper demonstrates that the performance of the character n-gram approach can be improved by fine-tuning the feature set and by appropriately selecting the length and type of character n-grams. This relatively simple and language-independent approach to the AA task outperforms both a bag-of-words baseline and other approaches, using the same corpus.Mexican Government (Conacyt) [240844, 20161958]; Mexican Government (SIP-IPN) [20171813, 20171344, 20172008]; Mexican Government (SNI); Mexican Government (COFAA-IPN)

    Automatic Detection of Online Jihadist Hate Speech

    Full text link
    We have developed a system that automatically detects online jihadist hate speech with over 80% accuracy, by using techniques from Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning. The system is trained on a corpus of 45,000 subversive Twitter messages collected from October 2014 to December 2016. We present a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the jihadist rhetoric in the corpus, examine the network of Twitter users, outline the technical procedure used to train the system, and discuss examples of use.Comment: 31 page

    Slave to the Algorithm? Why a \u27Right to an Explanation\u27 Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For

    Get PDF
    Algorithms, particularly machine learning (ML) algorithms, are increasingly important to individuals’ lives, but have caused a range of concerns revolving mainly around unfairness, discrimination and opacity. Transparency in the form of a “right to an explanation” has emerged as a compellingly attractive remedy since it intuitively promises to open the algorithmic “black box” to promote challenge, redress, and hopefully heightened accountability. Amidst the general furore over algorithmic bias we describe, any remedy in a storm has looked attractive. However, we argue that a right to an explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is unlikely to present a complete remedy to algorithmic harms, particularly in some of the core “algorithmic war stories” that have shaped recent attitudes in this domain. Firstly, the law is restrictive, unclear, or even paradoxical concerning when any explanation-related right can be triggered. Secondly, even navigating this, the legal conception of explanations as “meaningful information about the logic of processing” may not be provided by the kind of ML “explanations” computer scientists have developed, partially in response. ML explanations are restricted both by the type of explanation sought, the dimensionality of the domain and the type of user seeking an explanation. However, “subject-centric explanations (SCEs) focussing on particular regions of a model around a query show promise for interactive exploration, as do explanation systems based on learning a model from outside rather than taking it apart (pedagogical versus decompositional explanations) in dodging developers\u27 worries of intellectual property or trade secrets disclosure. Based on our analysis, we fear that the search for a “right to an explanation” in the GDPR may be at best distracting, and at worst nurture a new kind of “transparency fallacy.” But all is not lost. We argue that other parts of the GDPR related (i) to the right to erasure ( right to be forgotten ) and the right to data portability; and (ii) to privacy by design, Data Protection Impact Assessments and certification and privacy seals, may have the seeds we can use to make algorithms more responsible, explicable, and human-centered

    Taste and the algorithm

    Get PDF
    Today, a consistent part of our everyday interaction with art and aesthetic artefacts occurs through digital media, and our preferences and choices are systematically tracked and analyzed by algorithms in ways that are far from transparent. Our consumption is constantly documented, and then, we are fed back through tailored information. We are therefore witnessing the emergence of a complex interrelation between our aesthetic choices, their digital elaboration, and also the production of content and the dynamics of creative processes. All are involved in a process of mutual influences, and are partially determined by the invisible guiding hand of algorithms. With regard to this topic, this paper will introduce some key issues concerning the role of algorithms in aesthetic domains, such as taste detection and formation, cultural consumption and production, and showing how aesthetics can contribute to the ongoing debate about the impact of today’s “algorithmic culture”

    Multilingual Cross-domain Perspectives on Online Hate Speech

    Full text link
    In this report, we present a study of eight corpora of online hate speech, by demonstrating the NLP techniques that we used to collect and analyze the jihadist, extremist, racist, and sexist content. Analysis of the multilingual corpora shows that the different contexts share certain characteristics in their hateful rhetoric. To expose the main features, we have focused on text classification, text profiling, keyword and collocation extraction, along with manual annotation and qualitative study.Comment: 24 page
    • …
    corecore