arXiv Computation and Language By Liang Yue, Eric A. Vance

"You" Is Not Toxic: How LLM Labelers Rewrite the Web's Conversation Laws

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as labelers for toxic content differ from human crowd labels, focusing on the bias that LLMs, particularly Claude Haiku, over‑flag second‑person address (“you”) as toxic. On a dataset of 1.25 million news comments, Haiku incorrectly flags a much higher proportion of non‑toxic comments containing “you” compared to human raters, leading to a false increase in measured toxicity with reply depth. The authors show that rewriting “you” in the third person removes most of this bias, and that a certification approach—estimating laws rather than trusting individual labelers—can produce unbiased toxicity metrics even when using LLM scores. "Why it matters": The study reveals that relying on LLM labelers without correcting for their bias can distort our understanding of toxic discourse online, potentially leading to misguided moderation policies.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 28

Where Does Rhetorical Distortion Live? A Multi-Platform, Multi-Language Measurement of Influencer Content

The study introduces a unified method for measuring rhetorical distortion across six social media platforms and two languages, distinguishing between creator posts and their replies. It identifies five distortion dimensions—Significance Inflation, Anxiety Manufacturing, Novelty Claims, Loaded Language, and Temporal Distortion—using a three‑tier pipeline that combines lexical rules, negative filters, and LLM verification. Results show that distortion is far more strongly linked to the platform than content type, with X/Twitter exhibiting the highest distortion scores, and that the audience layer (replies) carries significantly more distortion than creator posts.

By Xucheng Yu, Jiangping Chen, Haohan Wang
arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago

When the Text Is Silent: Memory Shortcuts and the Validity of LLM Annotation under Evidence Insufficiency

The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) rely on textual evidence or on their pre‑existing knowledge when annotating text. Using counterfactual prompts for 995 public figures, the authors find that LLMs often default to memory shortcuts—providing correct facts about a figure even when the text contains no supporting evidence. These shortcuts are amplified by evaluation design and incentives, but can be mitigated by name reminders or masking, though with trade‑offs in gender annotation.

By Wenchang Wang, Yue Song
arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago

CST: Lightweight Risk Triage with Source-Grounded Evidence for Web Discussions

CST is a lightweight risk triage system that provides moderators with source‑grounded evidence for web discussions. It first assigns risk scores using character patterns and a multilingual model, then groups related messages and selects key excerpts to show, linking them back to the original thread. Across multiple languages and datasets, CST outperforms fully fine‑tuned models in ranking harmful messages and reduces moderator review time by at least 27% while maintaining high accuracy.

By Zhihua Wang, Yifeng Gao, Yunhao Feng, Rui Pan, Baiheng Zhao, Zixing Chen, Nan Li
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

When Hate Meets Facts: LLMs-in-the-Loop for Check-worthiness Detection in Hate Speech

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.

By Nicol\'as Benjam\'in Ocampo, Tommaso Caselli, Davide Ceolin