MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403850457 · doi:10.1145/3700791

AugmenToxic: Leveraging Reinforcement Learning to Optimize LLM Instruction Fine-Tuning for Data Augmentation to Enhance Toxicity Detection

2024· article· en· W4403850457 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on the Web · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceReinforcement learningHuman–computer interactionMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing the challenge of toxic language in online discussions is crucial for the development of effective toxicity detection models. This pioneering work focuses on addressing imbalanced datasets in toxicity detection by introducing a novel approach to augment toxic language data. We create a balanced dataset by instructing fine-tuning of Large Language Models (LLMs) using Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF). Recognizing the challenges in collecting sufficient toxic samples from social media platforms for building a balanced dataset, our methodology involves sentence-level text data augmentation through paraphrasing existing samples using optimized generative LLMs. Leveraging generative LLM, we utilize the Proximal Policy Optimizer (PPO) as the RL algorithm to fine-tune the model further and align it with human feedback. In other words, we start by fine-tuning a LLM using an instruction dataset, specifically tailored for the task of paraphrasing while maintaining semantic consistency. Next, we apply PPO and a reward function, to further fine-tune (optimize) the instruction-tuned LLM. This RL process guides the model in generating toxic responses. We utilize the Google Perspective API as a toxicity evaluator to assess generated responses and assign rewards/penalties accordingly. This approach guides LLMs through PPO and the reward function, transforming minority class samples into augmented versions. The primary goal of our methodology is to create a balanced and diverse dataset to enhance the accuracy and performance of classifiers in identifying instances from the minority class. Utilizing two publicly available toxic datasets, we compared various techniques with our proposed method for generating toxic samples, demonstrating that our approach outperforms all others in producing a higher number of toxic samples. Starting with an initial 16,225 toxic prompts, our method successfully generated 122,951 toxic samples with a toxicity score exceeding 30%. Subsequently, we developed various classifiers using the generated balanced datasets and applied a cost-sensitive learning approach to the original imbalanced dataset. The findings highlight the superior performance of classifiers trained on data generated using our proposed method. These results highlight the importance of employing RL and a data-agnostic model as a reward mechanism for augmenting toxic data, thereby enhancing the robustness of toxicity detection models.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it