As offensive content has become pervasive in social media, there has been much research in identifying potentially offensive messages. However, previous work on this topic did not consider the problem as a whole, but rather focused on detecting very specific types of offensive content, e.g., hate speech, cyberbulling, or cyber-aggression. In contrast, here we target several different kinds of offensive content.In particular, we model the task hierarchically, identifying the type and the target of offensive messages in social media. For this purpose, we complied the Offensive Language Identification Dataset (OLID), a new dataset with tweets annotated for offensive content using a fine-grained three-layer annotation scheme, which we make publicly available. We discuss the main similarities and differences between OLID and pre-existing datasets for hate speech identification, aggression detection, and similar tasks. We further experiment with and we compare the performance of different machine learning models on OLID.

We present the results and the main findings of SemEval-2019 Task 6 on Identifying and Categorizing Offensive Language in Social Media (OffensEval). The task was based on a new dataset, the Offensive Language Identification Dataset (OLID), which contains over 14,000 English tweets. It featured three sub-tasks. In sub-task A, the goal was to discriminate between offensive and non-offensive posts. In sub-task B, the focus was on the type of offensive content in the post. Finally, in sub-task C, systems had to detect the target of the offensive posts. OffensEval attracted a large number of participants and it was one of the most popular tasks in SemEval-2019. In total, about 800 teams signed up to participate in the task, and 115 of them submitted results, which we present and analyze in this report.

Findings of the 2016 Conference on Machine Translation (WMT16) Bojar, O.; Chatterjee, R.; Federmann, C.; Graham, Y.; Haddow, B.; Huck, M.; Jimeno Yepes, A.; Koehn, P.; Logacheva, V.; Monz, C.; Negri, M.; Névéol, A.; Neves, M.; Popel, M.; Post, M.; Rubino, R.; Scarton, C.; Specia, L.; Turchi, M.; Verspoor, K.; Zampieri, M.Abstract This paper presents the results of the WMT16 shared tasks, which included five machine translation (MT) tasks (standard news, IT-domain, biomedical, multimodal, pronoun), three evaluation tasks (metrics, tuning, run-time estimation of MT quality), and an automatic post-editing task and bilingual document alignment task. This year, 102 MT systems from 24 institutions (plus 36 anonymized online systems) were submitted to the 12 translation directions in the news translation task. The IT-domain task received 31 submissions from 12 institutions in 7 directions and the Biomedical task received 15 submissions systems from 5 institutions. Evaluation was both automatic and manual (relative ranking and 100-point scale assessments).The quality estimation task had three subtasks, with a total of 14 teams, submitting 39 entries. The automatic post-editing task had a total of 6 teams, submitting 11 entries.1 http://statmt.org/wmt16/results.html 2

This paper presents the results of the premier shared task organized alongside the Conference on Machine Translation (WMT) 2019. Participants were asked to build machine translation systems for any of 18 language pairs, to be evaluated on a test set of news stories. The main metric for this task is human judgment of translation quality. The task was also opened up to additional test suites to probe specific aspects of translation.

We present the results of the VarDial Evaluation Campaign on Natural Language Processing (NLP) for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects, which we organized as part of the fourth edition of the VarDial workshop at EACL'2017. This year, we included four shared tasks: Discriminating between Similar Languages (DSL), Arabic Dialect Identification (ADI), German Dialect Identification (GDI), and Cross-lingual Dependency Parsing (CLP). A total of 19 teams submitted runs across the four tasks, and 15 of them wrote system description papers.

In this paper we examine methods to detect hate speech in social media, while distinguishing this from general profanity. We aim to establish lexical baselines for this task by applying supervised classification methods using a recently released dataset annotated for this purpose. As features, our system uses character n-grams, word n-grams and word skip-grams. We obtain results of 78% accuracy in identifying posts across three classes. Results demonstrate that the main challenge lies in discriminating profanity and hate speech from each other. A number of directions for future work are discussed.

In this study we approach the problem of distinguishing general profanity from hate speech in social media, something which has not been widely considered. Using a new dataset annotated specifically for this task, we employ supervised classification along with a set of features that includes n-grams, skip-grams and clustering-based word representations. We apply approaches based on single classifiers as well as more advanced ensemble classifiers and stacked generalization, achieving the best result of 80% accuracy for this 3-class classification task. Analysis of the results reveals that discriminating hate speech and profanity is not a simple task, which may require features that capture a deeper understanding of the text not always possible with surface n-grams. The variability of gold labels in the annotated data, due to differences in the subjective adjudications of the annotators, is also an issue. Other directions for future work are discussed.

We report the findings of the second Complex Word Identification (CWI) shared task organized as part of the BEA workshop colocated with NAACL-HLT'2018. The second CWI shared task featured multilingual and multi-genre datasets divided into four tracks: English monolingual, German monolingual, Spanish monolingual, and a multilingual track with a French test set, and two tasks: binary classification and probabilistic classification. A total of 12 teams submitted their results in different task/track combinations and 11 of them wrote system description papers that are referred to in this report and appear in the BEA workshop proceedings.