The paper introduces WSF-ARG+, a new dataset that pairs hate speech with check‑worthiness annotations, and presents an LLM‑in‑the‑loop framework to streamline the annotation process. Experiments with 12 open‑weight large language models demonstrate that the framework cuts human effort while maintaining annotation quality. The study also shows that incorporating check‑worthiness labels improves hate‑speech detection performance, boosting macro‑F1 scores for large models by up to 0.213 and averaging 0.154 across models.
arXiv:2608.23152v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterspeech effectively neutralizes the impact of online hate. Although prior work explores automated counterspeech generation, it largely emphasizes...
arXiv:2610.20370v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Hate speech has become increasingly prevalent on social media, raising concerns about its detection, interpretation, and moderation. Persian, a relativ...
arXiv:2502. 08266v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Hate speech detection is a crucial task, especially on social media where harmful content can spread quickly.
The paper introduces FAID, a fine‑grained adaptive framework for detecting implicit hate speech. It first classifies samples into Shallow, Targeted, or Context‑Dependent categories and then applies tailored strategies—prompt‑tuning for shallow cases, knowledge augmentation for targeted ones, and an agentic prompt‑generation system for context‑dependent posts. Experiments on four benchmark datasets show that FAID outperforms state‑of‑the‑art baselines by allocating computational effort only where needed.
The paper presents an instruction‑tuned large language model (LLM) based on Qwen3 that is fine‑tuned for hate speech mitigation by unifying 36 English hate speech datasets. The authors show that this generalist LLM achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance on in‑domain benchmarks and delivers significant gains in cross‑domain and cross‑lingual generalization, outperforming specialist encoder‑based classifiers.
The paper investigates how annotator-style rebuttals can manipulate large language model (LLM) moderation systems, either by whitewashing hateful content as normal or smearing normal content as hateful. Using a rejudge protocol that adds decision‑boundary perturbations and adversarial rationales, the authors show that such rebuttals significantly degrade moderation performance, especially in multi‑turn settings. The study finds consistent, model‑specific asymmetries between the two manipulation directions and demonstrates that explicit reasoning prompts and defensive instructions mitigate but do not eliminate the vulnerability.
The paper evaluates six structured decision models for hate‑speech moderation across four datasets, comparing them to specialized, zero‑shot, commercial, and supervised baselines. It investigates whether providing dataset definitions or decomposing them into multiple questions improves classification, and measures latency and cost. Results show that commercial LLMs outperform decision models on only one dataset, definitions alter up to 28% of predictions without consistent gains, and decomposition helps in only 20% of cases, yet the best hosted decision model approaches the best commercial LLM’s performance with roughly 97% lower inference cost.
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive performance across a wide range of general NLP tasks; however, their effectiveness in sensitive domains, such as hate speech detection, remains less...
The study audits hate‑speech moderation on Twitter (now X) using 540,000 annotated tweets from a full day. Eighty percent of hateful tweets, including violent content, remained online after five months, and removal was only slightly more likely than for non‑hateful tweets, far below the rates for scams or adult content. Automated detection could not reliably classify hate but ranked it highly, allowing human triage; however, current staffing curbed little exposure, while substantial reductions were financially feasible and far below applicable regulatory fines.
The paper presents an explainable hate‑speech detection framework that combines DistilBERT embeddings, a Bi‑LSTM network, and an attention mechanism to capture contextual and sequential information. It uses LIME to highlight influential text features, providing transparency in predictions. Evaluated on two benchmark datasets for both binary and multi‑class tasks, the model achieves F1‑scores of 96.78%–99.53% for binary classification and 94.99%–97.00% for multi‑class classification, outperforming existing baselines.
The paper presents a new benchmark for automatically evaluating mental health stigma in online text, featuring a fine‑grained taxonomy that covers stigma mode, domain, and specific components across multiple mental health conditions. The authors annotate naturally occurring news and social media posts and test large language models and classifiers for sentiment, toxicity, and hate speech, finding that these models poorly capture stigma and often overpredict it without explicit rules. The benchmark, annotations, exemplar cases, and code are publicly released on GitHub.
arXiv:2610.16957v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard hate speech detection datasets often emphasize explicit harmful language, but directed harm can also be expressed indirectly, without clearl...