Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Comparing Human and LLM Annotation in Active Learning for Hostility Detection
arXiv:2604. 13899v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Instruction-tuned LLMs can annotate thousands of instances at low cost.
arXiv:2604. 13899v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Instruction-tuned LLMs can annotate thousands of instances at low cost.
arXiv:2609.37882v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Every text classifier for an African language begins with a budgeting question: how many labelled examples are needed, and can labels from other Afri...
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.
arXiv:2511. 14117v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Supervised classifiers output a distribution over classes but are typically trained against a single label obtained by collapsing multiple annotators into a majority vote.
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...
arXiv:2606. 08718v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While Deep Active Learning (DAL) effectively reduces human annotation costs, its efficacy is constrained by human annotation errors.
arXiv:2606. 28772v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hate speech annotation pipelines routinely collapse annotator disagreement into majority vote labels before training.
arXiv:2608. 09209v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Neural language models trained on large crowdsourced corpora frequently exploit spurious surface patterns tied to target labels without true linguistic or causal relevance, boosting benchmark performance while failing on adversarial or out-of-distribution inputs.
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.
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:2601.14172v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We study neural multi-label classification under severe label imbalance through sentence-level detection of the 19 refined Schwartz human val...
arXiv:2607. 18358v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Document classification is a solved problem in the laboratory and an unsolved one in the enterprise.