The study demonstrates that large language models (LLMs) can produce highly reliable labels under a single experimental setup, yet their outputs vary significantly when researchers alter task designs or model choices. By evaluating seven LLMs across 12 task designs and 3,000 tweets for offensive language and hate speech, the authors found that agreement dropped from a median Fleiss' κ of 0.91 to a median Cohen's κ of 0.76 when task designs changed. This design sensitivity inflates prevalence estimates by up to 110.6 times compared to sampling variance alone, and confidence scores fail to mitigate the issue.
arXiv:2606. 28772v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hate speech annotation pipelines routinely collapse annotator disagreement into majority vote labels before training.
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.
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: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 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:2609.01548v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in advice seeking and decision making that may affect social judgements. Despite stigma's profound e...
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 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.
arXiv:2605. 11954v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science as scalable measurement tools for converting unstructured text into variables that can enter standard empirical designs.
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...
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess social bias in text, but the passages they evaluate often contain surface noise such as typos and broken punctuation. This study applied five realistic noise conditions at varying intensities to 3,822 stereotype‑related responses and compared bias judgments on noisy versus original text. The findings show that noise disproportionately turns neutral judgments into biased ones—up to 120 times more likely—while rarely converting biased judgments into neutral ones, and that the most fragile LLM judge exhibits the greatest distortion at mild noise levels. As LLMs become more robust, the bias distortion tends toward parity rather than reversal, meaning bias measured on noisy text is systematically overestimated, especially in fairness‑critical categories.
arXiv:2606. 20205v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Psychological instruments designed for humans are increasingly used to assign large language models (LLMs) stable psychological profiles that affect their usability, safety assessment, and use as proxies for human participants in research.