Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Local context fails humans on harmful chat; external knowledge is key

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 15:16 UTC pith:J5VYX4YL

load-bearing objection Useful taxonomy of interpretation difficulty in cybercrime chats, but the key human numbers are confounded by non-native English annotators. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07277 v1 pith:J5VYX4YL submitted 2026-07-08 cs.CL cs.CY

Understanding Interpretation Difficulty in Harmful Online Communication: Insights from Cybercrime Communities

Tomohiro Okatsu , Naoki Takada , Yin Min Pa Pa , Katsunari Yoshioka , Tatsunori Mori This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.CY
keywords interpretation difficultyharmful online communicationcybercrime communitiesDiscordlarge language modelsevidence integrationcoded languagecommunity-specific knowledge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that interpreting harmful online messages — particularly in cybercrime communities on Discord — is fundamentally an evidence-integration problem, not a message-level classification task. The authors select 100 difficult messages containing slang, coded terms, abbreviations, and community-specific expressions, construct expert-reviewed reference interpretations, and then evaluate how well humans and large language models recover the intended meanings under different context conditions. The central finding is that local conversational context alone barely helps human interpreters: they correctly interpreted only about 5 of 100 messages with surrounding context, compared to about 63 of 100 when given full channel history plus external resources such as web searches and dictionaries. Large language models benefited more from local context than humans did — likely because broad pretraining knowledge partially substitutes for external lookups — but still failed on coded language with plausible literal meanings (for example, interpreting a coded reference to child sexual abuse material as a literal mention of pizza) and on community-specific abbreviations. Based on qualitative error analysis, the authors propose a taxonomy that separates the information sources needed for interpretation (general knowledge, domain knowledge, community knowledge, discourse structure, surrounding context, extended history, linguistic form cues) from the factors that make messages difficult (abbreviations, unknown words, multiple meanings, entangled dialogue, multilinguality, non-standard linguistic forms). The key structural insight is that these two dimensions do not map one-to-one: a single difficulty factor may require different information sources depending on the case, and a single information source may resolve multiple difficulties.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a quantitative demonstration that local context is grossly insufficient for interpreting harmful messages — humans correctly interpreted only 5.3 of 100 messages with local context, versus 62.7 of 100 with external knowledge and extended history — combined with the qualitative finding that humans and LLMs fail in systematically different ways. LLMs tend to produce fluent but incorrect literal interpretations of coded language, while humans fail from lack of community-specific knowledge. This divergence motivates the paper's proposed taxonomy, which separates information sources from difficulty factors without assuming a one-to-one mapping between them.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the experimental design: 100 purposefully selected difficult Discord messages are interpreted by three trained annotators under three conditions of increasing information access (message only, local context of 40 surrounding messages, full channel history plus external resources), and by two open-weight LLMs under two conditions (message only, local context). Reference interpretations are constructed through annotator consensus and expert review, then used to evaluate all candidate interpretations via majority-vote labeling (Match, Partial Match, Mismatch). The taxonomy of information sources and difficulty factors emerges from qualitative error analysis of the cases

Load-bearing premise

The reference interpretations — built by three graduate-student annotators through discussion and reviewed by one information-security expert — are assumed to recover the original intended meanings of the messages. The paper acknowledges this is not guaranteed, and since all evaluation of human and LLM performance is measured against these references, systematic errors in the reference set would propagate to all reported results. The 100 messages were also purposefully chosen

What would settle it

If the reference interpretations systematically miss the true intended meanings — for example, if the expert reviewer lacks knowledge of specific community conventions — then the evaluation labels would be wrong, and the reported performance gaps between conditions could be artifacts of reference-set error rather than genuine evidence-integration effects.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an exploratory study of interpretation difficulty in cybercrime-related Discord chats. The authors purposefully select 100 difficult-to-interpret messages, construct expert-reviewed reference interpretations, and evaluate both human annotators (under three conditions: message-only, local context, and external knowledge) and two open-weight LLMs (GPT-OSS-20B and GPT-OSS-120B, under message-only and local-context conditions). The key empirical findings are that local context alone is insufficient for human annotators (5.3/100 matches in Condition B vs. 62.7/100 in Condition C with external resources), while LLMs benefit from local context (GPT-OSS-120B: 37→58 matches). The paper also proposes a preliminary classification of interpretation difficulty factors, organized along information sources (knowledge, textual evidence) and difficulty factors (semantic, context-selection, linguistic form). The central conceptual claim is that harmful-content interpretation should be treated as an evidence-integration problem rather than message-level classification.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine gap in the harmful-content analysis literature: most prior work focuses on detection rather than interpretation difficulty. The evidence-integration framing is a useful conceptual contribution that could inform future system design. The use of local open-weight models for privacy reasons is a methodological strength, and the preliminary taxonomy (Figure 1) provides a reasonable organizing framework. However, the quantitative backbone of the central claim is weakened by a confound discussed below.

major comments (3)
  1. §4.1 and Table 1: The central quantitative evidence for the evidence-integration claim is the human improvement from Condition B (5.3/100 matches) to Condition C (62.7/100). However, the annotators are graduate students at a Japanese university interpreting English Discord messages and writing interpretations in Japanese (§3.2; Limitation 3). Non-native English speakers would struggle disproportionately with English slang, cultural references, and coded language even when local context is available, because recognizing terms like 'cheese pizza' or 'rug pull' often depends on English-cultural knowledge that local context alone cannot supply. This inflates the apparent insufficiency of local context and the magnitude of the B→C improvement. The LLM comparison is similarly confounded: English-pretrained LLMs outperform non-native human annotators in Condition B/ii (58 vs. 5.3), but this gap
  2. §3.2 and Table 2: The confidence scores assigned during reference construction (average 92.1) do not correlate with evaluation outcomes. Table 2 shows that annotator confidence for Match (78.5), Partial Match (71.7), and Mismatch (75.8) interpretations in Condition C are not meaningfully differentiated, and in some cases Mismatch confidence exceeds Partial Match confidence. This undermines the reliability of the reference interpretations themselves: if annotators cannot distinguish correct from incorrect interpretations via confidence, the reference set may contain systematic errors that propagate to all downstream evaluations. The paper acknowledges this in Limitation 4 but does not address how it affects the validity of the reported numbers. At minimum, the authors should report how many of the 100 reference interpretations fall into low-confidence ranges and whether excluding them
  3. §3.4: The inter-rater agreement for evaluation is Fleiss' κ = 0.54 (moderate), with an exact agreement rate of 0.616 (Table 4). For a three-category labeling task (Match/Partial/Mismatch) on free-text semantic equivalence, this level of agreement raises concerns about whether the evaluation labels are reliable enough to support the quantitative comparisons. The paper uses majority vote, but with three evaluators and 61.6% exact agreement, a substantial proportion of labels are determined by a single evaluator's judgment. The authors should discuss how this agreement level affects the robustness of the reported performance differences, particularly for the LLM comparisons where the margins (e.g., 58 vs. 41 matches between the two models) are not large relative to the disagreement rate.
minor comments (5)
  1. §3.3: The LLM decoding parameters (temperature=1.0, top-p=1.0) are unusual for an interpretation task where consistency matters. The authors state they 'did not explicitly fix a random seed,' which means individual results may not be reproducible. Consider running multiple generations and reporting variance.
  2. §5.2: The example 'How much djs left?' where 'djs' refers to David Jones (Australian department store) is presented as an LLM error, but it is unclear whether the human annotators correctly identified this meaning in Condition C. If they did not, this example may reflect reference interpretation error rather than LLM-specific failure.
  3. Figure 1: The taxonomy is described as 'preliminary' and derived from 'post-hoc qualitative analysis' (Limitation 6). The mapping between information sources and difficulty factors is stated to be non-one-to-one, but the figure structure does not clearly communicate this. Consider adding example mappings or a matrix representation.
  4. §3.1: The dataset selection criteria mention that 92/100 messages contained terms not in WordNet and 73/100 not in Wiktionary. These numbers are reported but not used in subsequent analysis. Consider connecting them to specific difficulty categories in the taxonomy.
  5. Appendix B: The system prompt instructs the model to output in Japanese ('explains the meaning of English text in natural Japanese'). This is a significant design choice that is not discussed in the main text. The interaction between input language (English), output language (Japanese), and model capability should be addressed, as it may affect LLM performance relative to a same-language setup.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: the derivation chain is self-contained

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is straightforward and non-circular. (1) Reference interpretations are constructed by three annotators under conditions A–C, refined through consensus discussion, and reviewed by an expert (Section 3.2). (2) Separate evaluators who did not participate in reference construction compare candidate interpretations (human and LLM) against these references using majority vote (Section 3.4). The reference construction and evaluation are performed by disjoint sets of people, so no evaluation reduces to its own input. (3) The LLM experiments (Section 3.3) use standard prompt-based generation evaluated against the externally constructed references—no fitted parameters are renamed as predictions. (4) The taxonomy of difficulty factors (Section 6) is derived through post-hoc qualitative analysis of the data and prior literature, explicitly presented as 'preliminary' and requiring further validation (Limitation 6). It is not fit to the quantitative results and then presented as a prediction. (5) The confidence scores from Condition C are explicitly stated as not used to determine evaluation labels, only as auxiliary signals (Section 3.4), so there is no self-definitional loop. The skeptic's concern about non-native English annotators inflating the B→C improvement is a validity/external-validity concern, not a circularity concern—it questions whether the numbers generalize, not whether the argument reduces to its inputs by construction. No step in the paper's chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces a taxonomy with several design choices (context window size, message count, decoding parameters) that are free parameters chosen by the authors. The core axioms concern the representativeness of the sample, the accuracy of reference interpretations, the adequacy of annotators, and the reliability of evaluation labels. The taxonomy itself is an invented entity without independent validation.

free parameters (3)
  • Context window size (20 preceding + 20 following messages) = 20+20
    Chosen by the authors for the local context condition; no justification given for why 20 is the appropriate window size. Affects all Condition B and Condition ii results.
  • Number of target messages (100) = 100
    Chosen to enable detailed annotation; affects statistical power and generalizability of all results.
  • LLM decoding parameters (temperature=1.0, top-p=1.0) = 1.0, 1.0
    Default parameters chosen without tuning; affects LLM interpretation quality.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The 100 selected messages are representative of the types of interpretation difficulty that occur in cybercrime-related Discord chats.
    Invoked in Section 3.1: messages were purposefully selected for difficulty. The taxonomy and error analysis depend on this being a representative sample of difficulty types, not just arbitrary hard cases.
  • domain assumption Consensus interpretations reviewed by an information security expert recover the original intended meanings of the messages.
    Invoked in Section 3.2: reference interpretations are used as ground truth for all evaluation. The paper acknowledges this may not always hold (Limitations, point 4).
  • domain assumption Three graduate students with NLP training are adequate proxies for human interpreters of cybercrime-related Discord messages.
    Invoked in Section 3.2: all human interpretation results depend on this assumption. The annotators are not domain experts or community members, which may affect interpretation quality.
  • domain assumption The evaluation labels (Match, Partial Match, Mismatch) assigned by three separate graduate students accurately reflect semantic equivalence between candidate and reference interpretations.
    Invoked in Section 3.4: Fleiss' κ = 0.54 indicates moderate agreement, meaning a substantial proportion of labels could differ under different evaluators.
invented entities (1)
  • Classification of interpretation difficulty factors (Figure 1) no independent evidence
    purpose: Organizes sources of interpretation difficulty into information sources (Knowledge, Textual Evidence) and difficulty factors (Semantic, Context-Selection, Linguistic Form).
    The taxonomy is derived from post-hoc qualitative analysis of 100 messages and prior literature. No independent validation on separate datasets is provided. The paper acknowledges (Limitations, point 6) that 'further validation on independent datasets is necessary.'

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 18792 in / 3178 out tokens · 496616 ms · 2026-07-09T15:16:27.404400+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Harmful online communication often contains slang, coded terms, abbreviations, and community-specific expressions, which make messages difficult to interpret. This paper presents an exploratory study of interpretation difficulty in Discord chats related to cybercrime. We construct reference interpretations of purposefully selected difficult messages, which were reviewed by an expert. We then use them to evaluate human and large language model (LLM) interpretations under different context conditions. The results show that local context alone is often insufficient for humans, while external knowledge and extended conversational context substantially improve human interpretation. For LLMs, local context also improves interpretation, and the larger model performs better. We further conduct a qualitative error analysis and propose a preliminary classification of factors that make harmful chats difficult to interpret. These findings suggest that harmful-content analysis should treat interpretation as an evidence-integration problem, rather than as message-level classification alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07277 by Katsunari Yoshioka, Naoki Takada, Tatsunori Mori, Tomohiro Okatsu, Yin Min Pa Pa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Information sources and interpretation-difficulty factors in harmful online communication. The left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

    Language Models are Few-Shot Learners , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2020 , url =

    work page 2020

  2. [3]

    Computers & Security , volume =

    Machine Learning and Semantic Analysis of In-game Chat for Cyberbullying , author =. Computers & Security , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    work page 2018

  3. [7]

    Forensic Sciences , volume =

    Conceptualizing Cybercrime: Definitions, Typologies and Taxonomies , author =. Forensic Sciences , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    work page 2022

  4. [8]

    Global Cybercrime Damages: A Baseline for Frontier

    Luko. Global Cybercrime Damages: A Baseline for Frontier. 2026 , doi =

    work page 2026

  5. [9]

    2024 , month = jan, address =

    Kawaguchi, Yamato and Pa Pa, Yin Minn and Yoshioka, Katsunari and Matsumoto, Tsutomu , booktitle =. 2024 , month = jan, address =

    work page 2024

  6. [10]

    Lexical Normalisation of Short Text Messages: Makn Sens a

    Han, Bo and Baldwin, Timothy , editor =. Lexical Normalisation of Short Text Messages: Makn Sens a. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , month = jun, year =

    work page

  7. [11]

    Tkol, Httt, and r/radiohead: High Affinity Terms in

    Bhandari, Abhinav and Armstrong, Caitrin , editor =. Tkol, Httt, and r/radiohead: High Affinity Terms in. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2019) , month = nov, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/D19-5508 , url =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d19-5508 2019

  8. [12]

    Ji, Xu and Zhang, Jianyi and Zhou, Ziyin and Zhao, Zhangchi and Qiao, Qianqian and Han, Kaiying and Hossen, Md Imran and Hei, Xiali , booktitle =. Can. 2025 , publisher =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94458-1_7 , url =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94458-1_7 2025

  9. [13]

    Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition , pages =

    Grounding in Communication , author =. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition , pages =. 1991 , address =. doi:10.1037/10096-006 , url =

    work page doi:10.1037/10096-006 1991

  10. [15]

    Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , series =

    Large Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledge , author =. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , series =. 2023 , publisher =

    work page 2023

  11. [19]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive

    Lewis, Patrick and Perez, Ethan and Piktus, Aleksandra and Petroni, Fabio and Karpukhin, Vladimir and Goyal, Naman and K. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2020 , url =

    work page 2020

  12. [20]

    Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT , month = jun, year =

    You Talking to Me? A Corpus and Algorithm for Conversation Disentanglement , author =. Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT , month = jun, year =

    work page

  13. [24]

    Tokenization Impacts Multilingual Language Modeling: Assessing Vocabulary Allocation and Overlap Across Languages

    Tokenization Impacts Multilingual Language Modeling: Assessing Vocabulary Allocation and Overlap Across Languages , author =. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , month = jul, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.350 , url =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.350 2023

  14. [27]

    2025 , month = aug, address =

    Roy, Sayak Saha and Vafa, Elham Pourabbas and Khanmohamaddi, Kobra and Nilizadeh, Shirin , booktitle =. 2025 , month = aug, address =

    work page 2025

  15. [29]

    2024 , howpublished =

    International Operation Takes Down Another Encrypted Messaging Service Used by Criminals , author =. 2024 , howpublished =

    work page 2024

  16. [30]

    2025 , howpublished =

    work page 2025

  17. [32]

    Unveiling the Risks of

    Roy, Sayak Saha and Das, Dipanjan and Bose, Priyanka and Kruegel, Christopher and Vigna, Giovanni and Nilizadeh, Shirin , journal =. Unveiling the Risks of. 2024 , doi =

    work page 2024

  18. [35]

    2021 , pages =

    Thomas, Kurt and Akhawe, Devdatta and Bailey, Michael and Boneh, Dan and Bursztein, Elie and Consolvo, Sunny and Dell, Nicola and Durumeric, Zakir and Kelley, Patrick Gage and Kumar, Deepak and McCoy, Damon and Meiklejohn, Sarah and Ristenpart, Thomas and Stringhini, Gianluca , booktitle =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1109/SP40001.2021.00028 , url =

    work page doi:10.1109/sp40001.2021.00028 2021

  19. [36]

    and Berge, PS , journal =

    Heslep, Daniel G. and Berge, PS , journal =. Mapping. 2024 , doi =

    work page 2024

  20. [38]

    Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media (LSM 2011) , month = jun, year =

    Language Use as a Reflection of Socialization in Online Communities , author =. Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media (LSM 2011) , month = jun, year =

    work page 2011

  21. [39]

    2021 , howpublished =

    Malware Increasingly Targets. 2021 , howpublished =

    work page 2021

  22. [40]

    2021 , howpublished =

    work page 2021

  23. [41]

    2024 , howpublished =

    How. 2024 , howpublished =

    work page 2024

  24. [42]

    Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation , month = jun, year =

    Zampieri, Marcos and Malmasi, Shervin and Nakov, Preslav and Rosenthal, Sara and Farra, Noura and Kumar, Ritesh , editor =. Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation , month = jun, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/S19-2010 , url =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/s19-2010 2010

  25. [43]

    2021 , doi =

    Mathew, Binny and Saha, Punyajoy and Yimam, Seid Muhie and Biemann, Chris and Goyal, Pawan and Mukherjee, Animesh , booktitle =. 2021 , doi =

    work page 2021

  26. [44]

    Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , month = jul, year =

    Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language , author =. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , month = jul, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.486 , url =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.486 2020

  27. [49]

    R. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) , month = aug, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.4 , url =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.4 2021

  28. [51]

    Reading Thieves

    Yuan, Kan and Lu, Haoran and Liao, Xiaojing and Wang, XiaoFeng , booktitle =. Reading Thieves. 2018 , address =

    work page 2018

  29. [52]

    Proceedings of the 22nd Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2023) , year =

    Argot as a Trust Signal: Slang, Jargon & Reputation on a Large Cybercrime Forum , author =. Proceedings of the 22nd Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2023) , year =

    work page 2023

  30. [55]

    Can Prompting

    Ghorbanpour, Faeze and Dementieva, Daryna and Fraser, Alexander , editor =. Can Prompting. Proceedings of the The 9th Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH) , month = aug, year =

    work page

  31. [57]

    Content moderation by

    Huang, Tao , journal =. Content moderation by. 2025 , doi =

    work page 2025

  32. [58]

    Is Explanation All You Need? An Expert Survey on

    Di Bonaventura, Chiara and Siciliani, Lucia and Basile, Pierpaolo and Mero. Is Explanation All You Need? An Expert Survey on. Proceedings of the Tenth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it 2024) , month = dec, year =

    work page 2024

  33. [60]

    2025 , howpublished =

    Introducing. 2025 , howpublished =

    work page 2025

  34. [61]

    2026 , howpublished =

    Ollama , author =. 2026 , howpublished =

    work page 2026

  35. [62]

    Psychological Bulletin , volume =

    Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement among Many Raters , author =. Psychological Bulletin , volume =. 1971 , doi =

    work page 1971

  36. [63]

    2018 , address =

    Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , author =. 2018 , address =

    work page 2018

  37. [64]

    2026 , howpublished =

    work page 2026

  38. [65]

    2026 , howpublished =

    Call For Papers: The 10th Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms , author =. 2026 , howpublished =

    work page 2026

  39. [66]

    Bhupendra Acharya, Dario Lazzaro, Antonio Emanuele Cin \`a , and Thorsten Holz. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696410.3714634 Pirates of charity: Exploring donation-based abuses in social media platforms . In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pages 3968--3981. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page doi:10.1145/3696410.3714634 2025

  40. [67]

    Jeovane Hon \'o rio Alves, Hor \'a cio A. C. G. Pedroso, Rafael Honorio Venetikides, Joel E. M. K \"o ster, Luiz Rodrigo Grochocki, Cinthia O. A. Freitas, and Jean Paul Barddal. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLA58977.2023.00299 Detecting relevant information in high-volume chat logs: Keyphrase extraction for grooming and drug dealing forensic analysis ....

    work page doi:10.1109/icmla58977.2023.00299 2023

  41. [68]

    Yan Aquino et al. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.00627 Discord unveiled: A comprehensive dataset of public communication (2015--2024) . Preprint, arXiv:2502.00627

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.00627 2025

  42. [69]

    Associated Press . 2025. WhatsApp takes down 6.8 million accounts linked to criminal scam centers. https://apnews.com/article/whatsapp-scams-accounts-deleted-meta-platforms-49c5e8e530c1976b98f3d022f1c6ab8a. Accessed 2026-06-03

    work page 2025

  43. [70]

    Brown et al

    Tom B. Brown et al. 2020. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Abstract.html Language models are few-shot learners . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877--1901

    work page 2020

  44. [71]

    Yekun Chai, Yewei Fang, Qiwei Peng, and Xuhong Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.86 Tokenization falling short: On subword robustness in large language models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 1582--1599, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.86 2024

  45. [72]

    Mai ElSherief, Caleb Ziems, David Muchlinski, Vaishnavi Anupindi, Jordyn Seybolt, Munmun De Choudhury, and Diyi Yang. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.29 Latent hatred: A benchmark for understanding implicit hate speech . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 345--363, Online and ...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.29 2021

  46. [73]

    Micha Elsner and Eugene Charniak. 2008. https://aclanthology.org/P08-1095/ You talking to me? a corpus and algorithm for conversation disentanglement . In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 834--842, Columbus, Ohio. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2008

  47. [74]

    Micha Elsner and Eugene Charniak. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00003 Disentangling chat . Computational Linguistics, 36(3):389--409

    work page doi:10.1162/coli_a_00003 2010

  48. [75]

    Europol . 2024. International operation takes down another encrypted messaging service used by criminals. https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/international-operation-takes-down-another-encrypted-messaging-service-used-criminals. Accessed 2026-06-03

    work page 2024

  49. [76]

    Joseph L. Fleiss. 1971. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619 Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters . Psychological Bulletin, 76(5):378--382

    work page doi:10.1037/h0031619 1971

  50. [77]

    Kyle Gorman, Christo Kirov, Brian Roark, and Richard Sproat. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.85 Structured abbreviation expansion in context . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 995--1005, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-emnlp.85 2021

  51. [78]

    Keyan Guo, Alexander Hu, Jaden Mu, Ziheng Shi, Ziming Zhao, Nishant Vishwamitra, and Hongxin Hu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLA58977.2023.00237 An investigation of large language models for real-world hate speech detection . In 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), pages 1568--1573. IEEE

    work page doi:10.1109/icmla58977.2023.00237 2023

  52. [79]

    Bo Han and Timothy Baldwin. 2011. https://aclanthology.org/P11-1038/ Lexical normalisation of short text messages: Makn sens a \# twitter . In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 368--378, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2011

  53. [80]

    Hao He, Haoqin Yang, Philipp Burckhardt, Alexandros Kapravelos, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Christian K \"a stner. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1145/3744916.3764531 Six million (suspected) fake stars in GitHub : A growing spiral of popularity contests, spams, and malware . In Proceedings of the 2026 IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineering (IC...

    work page doi:10.1145/3744916.3764531 2026

  54. [81]

    Heslep and PS Berge

    Daniel G. Heslep and PS Berge. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211062548 Mapping Discord 's darkside: Distributed hate networks on Disboard . New Media & Society, 26(1):534--555

    work page doi:10.1177/14614448211062548 2024

  55. [82]

    Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.1145/3543873.3587368 Is ChatGPT better than human annotators? potential and limitations of ChatGPT in explaining implicit hate speech . In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 294--297. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page doi:10.1145/3543873.3587368 2023

  56. [83]

    Haoyang Huang, Tianyi Tang, Dongdong Zhang, Xin Zhao, Ting Song, Yan Xia, and Furu Wei. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.826 Not all languages are created equal in LLM s: Improving multilingual capability by cross-lingual-thought prompting . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 12365--1239...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.826 2023

  57. [84]

    Tao Huang. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-025-11328-1 Content moderation by LLM : from accuracy to legitimacy . Artificial Intelligence Review, 58(320)

    work page doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11328-1 2025

  58. [85]

    Jack Hughes, Sarah Horgan, Ben Collier, and Alice Hutchings. 2023. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/7c3bd618-1dc1-4f19-9fe7-de57d7a1c1f7 Argot as a trust signal: Slang, jargon & reputation on a large cybercrime forum . In Proceedings of the 22nd Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [86]

    Intel 471 . 2024. How Discord is abused for cybercrime. https://www.intel471.com/blog/how-discord-is-abused-for-cybercrime. Accessed 2026-06-03

    work page 2024

  60. [87]

    INTERPOL . 2026. https://www.interpol.int/content/download/24327/file/CYBER_ASP\ INTERPOL asia and south pacific cyber threat assessment report 2025/2026 . Technical report, INTERPOL. Accessed 2026-06-05

    work page 2026

  61. [88]

    Nikhil Kandpal, Haikang Deng, Adam Roberts, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. 2023. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/kandpal23a.html Large language models struggle to learn long-tail knowledge . In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 15696--15707. PMLR

    work page 2023

  62. [89]

    Yamato Kawaguchi, Yin Minn Pa Pa, Katsunari Yoshioka, and Tsutomu Matsumoto. 2024. https://yinminnpapa.com/files/2024_SCIS_kawaguchikun.pdf ChatGPT assisted information collection system for cybercrime on Discord . In Proceedings of the 2024 Symposium on Cryptography and Information Security (SCIS 2024), Nagasaki, Japan. The Institute of Electronics, Info...

    work page 2024

  63. [90]

    Klaus Krippendorff. 2018. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/content-analysis/book258450 Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 4 edition. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    work page 2018

  64. [91]

    Kummerfeld, Sai R

    Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Sai R. Gouravajhala, Joseph J. Peper, Vignesh Athreya, Chulaka Gunasekara, Jatin Ganhotra, Siva Sankalp Patel, Lazaros C Polymenakos, and Walter Lasecki. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1374 A large-scale corpus for conversation disentanglement . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational L...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1374 2019

  65. [92]

    Massimo La Morgia, Alessandro Mei, Alberto Maria Mongardini, and Jie Wu. 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.13530 Uncovering the dark side of Telegram : Fakes, clones, scams, and conspiracy movements . Preprint, arXiv:2111.13530

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.13530 2021

  66. [93]

    u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K \"u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \"a schel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2020. https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2020/hash/6b493230205f780e1bc26945df7481e5-Abstract.html Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks . ...

    work page 2020

  67. [94]

    Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00638 Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:157--173

    work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 2024

  68. [95]

    e Luko s i \= u t \

    Kamil \. e Luko s i \= u t \. e , John Halstead, and Luca Righetti. 2026. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.20570 Global cybercrime damages: A baseline for frontier AI risk assessment . Technical report, Centre for the Governance of AI. ArXiv:2603.20570

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.20570 2026

  69. [96]

    Rijul Magu and Jiebo Luo. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5112 Determining code words in euphemistic hate speech using word embedding networks . In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2), pages 93--100, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/w18-5112 2018

  70. [97]

    Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.546 When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: L...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.546 2023

  71. [98]

    Sarah Masud, Sahajpreet Singh, Viktor Hangya, Alexander Fraser, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.886 Hate personified: Investigating the role of LLM s in content moderation . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 15847--15863, Miami, Florida, USA. Associati...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.886 2024

  72. [99]

    Lingrui Mei, Shenghua Liu, Yiwei Wang, Baolong Bi, and Xueqi Cheng. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.698 SLANG : New concept comprehension of large language models . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 12558--12575, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.698 2024

  73. [100]

    Buchanan, Adrian Smales, and Gordon Russell

    Shane Murnion, William J. Buchanan, Adrian Smales, and Gordon Russell. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.02.016 Machine learning and semantic analysis of in-game chat for cyberbullying . Computers & Security, 76:197--213

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cose.2018.02.016 2018

  74. [101]

    National Center for Missing & Exploited Children . 2026. CyberTipline data 2025. https://www.missingkids.org/gethelpnow/cybertipline/cybertiplinedata. Accessed 2026-06-11

    work page 2026

  75. [102]

    Roberto Navigli. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1145/1459352.1459355 Word sense disambiguation: A survey . ACM Computing Surveys, 41(2):1--69

    work page doi:10.1145/1459352.1459355 2009

  76. [103]

    Dong Nguyen and Carolyn P. Ros \'e . 2011. https://aclanthology.org/W11-0710/ Language use as a reflection of socialization in online communities . In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media (LSM 2011), pages 76--85, Portland, Oregon. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2011

  77. [104]

    OpenAI . 2025. Introducing gpt-oss . https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-oss/. Accessed 2026-06-11

    work page 2025

  78. [105]

    Youngja Park and Taesung Lee. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-industry.54 Full-stack information extraction system for cybersecurity intelligence . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, pages 531--539, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-industry.54 2022

  79. [106]

    Princeton University . 2010. https://wordnet.princeton.edu/ About WordNet

    work page 2010

  80. [107]

    Mortensen, and Graham Neubig

    Nathaniel Robinson, Perez Ogayo, David R. Mortensen, and Graham Neubig. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.wmt-1.40 ChatGPT MT : Competitive for high- (but not low-) resource languages . In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 392--418, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.wmt-1.40 2023

Showing first 80 references.