COUNT: COntrastive UNlikelihood Text Style Transfer for Text Detoxification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offensive and toxic text on social media platforms can lead to polarization and divisiveness within online communities and hinders constructive dialogue. Text detoxification is a crucial task in natural language processing to ensure the generation of non-toxic and safe text. Text detoxification is a special case of the Text Style Transfer (TST) problem, where an input text is rephrased to an output text that preserves its content while modifying the style (in this case to a more neutral, non-toxic style). State-of-the-art methods for detoxification use supervised training of encoder-decoder models to produce gold-standard outputs with a standard likelihood-based objective. However, it can be hard for these models to deviate from their pretrained auto-encoder identity mapping. While previous methods have used unlikelihood-based losses to penalize input-to-output copying of toxic content, these methods also unfortunately penalize non-toxic content in the input that would be fine to preserve in the output. To address these issues, we introduce a novel contrastive unlikelihood objective (COUNT) that directly contrasts the gold standard rephrasing with the identity input-to-output mapping to effectively isolate and focus learning on non-toxic style transfer. We benchmark COUNT on two parallel datasets, ParaDetox and APPDIA, showing that it achieves significant improvements in jointly combined fluency, content preservation, and detoxification (i.e., the highest “J” score).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".