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.
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:2601. 11178v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Social media platforms are increasingly dominated by long-form multimodal content, where harmful narratives are constructed through a complex interplay of audio, visual, and textual cues.
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: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:2606. 18852v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Classifying implicit hate speech remains a challenge, as intent is often masked through insinuation and context rather than explicit slurs.
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 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 proposes a training‑time explainability framework that aligns model reasoning with human‑annotated rationales to improve both classification performance and interpretability for multilingual hate speech detection. It is evaluated on HateXplain (English) and BullySent (Hinglish), datasets that capture anti‑Muslim hate in culturally coded, multilingual forms. Using methods such as LIME, Integrated Gradients, Grad‑X‑Input, and attention, the study shows that gradient‑ and attention‑based regularization boosts F‑scores, enhances plausibility and faithfulness, and captures culturally specific cues for detecting implicit anti‑Muslim hate.
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 paper introduces ProKDA, a progressive knowledge-to-decision alignment framework for explainable hateful meme detection. ProKDA separates explanation generation and label prediction into three sequential training stages—background knowledge learning, hatefulness detection learning, and hatefulness boundary alignment—reducing task interference. Experiments on three public benchmarks demonstrate that ProKDA achieves state‑of‑the‑art detection performance while providing accurate, evidence‑supported explanations for moderation decisions.
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 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.