REVIEW 2 cited by
Human and LLM Biases in Hate Speech Annotations: A Socio-Demographic Analysis of Annotators and Targets
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
The rise of online platforms exacerbated the spread of hate speech, demanding scalable and effective detection. However, the accuracy of hate speech detection systems heavily relies on human-labeled data, which is inherently susceptible to biases. While previous work has examined the issue, the interplay between the characteristics of the annotator and those of the target of the hate are still unexplored. We fill this gap by leveraging an extensive dataset with rich socio-demographic information of both annotators and targets, uncovering how human biases manifest in relation to the target's attributes. Our analysis surfaces the presence of widespread biases, which we quantitatively describe and characterize based on their intensity and prevalence, revealing marked differences. Furthermore, we compare human biases with those exhibited by persona-based LLMs. Our findings indicate that while persona-based LLMs do exhibit biases, these differ significantly from those of human annotators. Overall, our work offers new and nuanced results on human biases in hate speech annotations, as well as fresh insights into the design of AI-driven hate speech detection systems.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks
Across five LLMs and ten no-consensus datasets, neutrality drops sharply when models act as pairwise judges, pointwise judges, or debaters compared to when they generate answers with an explicit neutral option.
-
Is LLM an Overconfident Judge? Unveiling the Capabilities of LLMs in Detecting Offensive Language with Annotation Disagreement
LLMs become less accurate and more overconfident as human annotator agreement drops, and training on disagreement samples improves in-domain accuracy and confidence alignment.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.