REVIEW 1 cited by
Investigating Annotator Bias in Large Language Models for Hate Speech Detection
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Data annotation, the practice of assigning descriptive labels to raw data, is pivotal in optimizing the performance of machine learning models. However, it is a resource-intensive process susceptible to biases introduced by annotators. The emergence of sophisticated Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a unique opportunity to modernize and streamline this complex procedure. While existing research extensively evaluates the efficacy of LLMs, as annotators, this paper delves into the biases present in LLMs when annotating hate speech data. Our research contributes to understanding biases in four key categories: gender, race, religion, and disability with four LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama-3.1 and Gemma-2. Specifically targeting highly vulnerable groups within these categories, we analyze annotator biases. Furthermore, we conduct a comprehensive examination of potential factors contributing to these biases by scrutinizing the annotated data. We introduce our custom hate speech detection dataset, HateBiasNet, to conduct this research. Additionally, we perform the same experiments on the ETHOS (Mollas et al. 2022) dataset also for comparative analysis. This paper serves as a crucial resource, guiding researchers and practitioners in harnessing the potential of LLMs for data annotation, thereby fostering advancements in this critical field.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Mapping Toxic Comments Across Demographics: A Dataset from German Public Broadcasting
A new German toxic-comment dataset with channel-level age estimates reveals age differences in toxic speech, but age is inferred from channel audience profiles, not individual users.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.