Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

LLMsAgainstHate @ NLU of Devanagari Script Languages 2025: Hate Speech Detection and Target Identification in Devanagari Languages via Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning of LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LoRA-based parameter-efficient fine-tuning lets a single 16GB GPU reach 90.05% weighted F1 for hate speech detection and 71.47% for target identification in Hindi and Nepali Devanagari text, with a 4-bit quantized Nemo model beating…

desk verdict A reproducible shared-task system description whose 'efficacy' claim rests on weighted F1; the hate-class F1 is 53.5% and no baselines are reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17131 v2 pith:4Q622DB7 submitted 2024-12-22 cs.CL

Rushendra Sidibomma , Pransh Patwa , Parth Patwa , Aman Chadha , Vinija Jain , Amitava Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords hatespeechdetectionDevanagariscriptHindiNepaliparameter-efficientfine-tuningLoRAlow-resourceNLPlargelanguagemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that parameter-efficient fine-tuning with LoRA is a practical route to hate speech detection and target identification in Devanagari-scripted, low-resource languages. Instead of fully fine-tuning large models, it freezes the base LLM and trains only small low-rank matrices on a single 16GB T4 GPU after 4-bit quantization. On the CHiPSAL shared-task dataset of Hindi and Nepali Devanagari text, the best adapted model, Nemo-Instruct-2407, reaches weighted F1 of 90.05% for hate speech detection and 71.47% for target identification, outperforming the larger Llama-3.1-8B. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that lightweight adaptation can put LLM-based moderation within reach where full training is not.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation), in which each weight update is decomposed into the product of two low-rank matrices, $W' = W + \Delta W = W + AB^T$, inserted into the model's attention layers; only $A$ and $B$ are trained while the pretrained weights stay frozen. The paper combines this with 4-bit quantization and a 16GB NVIDIA T4 GPU, fine-tuning for 2 epochs on hate detection and 4 epochs on target identification. The experimental comparison across Llama-3.1-8B, Nemo-Instruct-2407, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, and Phi-3-medium-4k-Instruct is what carries the claim that the approach is effective.

What would settle it

Take a published LLM with no meaningful Devanagari training data, run the same LoRA recipe, and compare hate-class F1 against an always-predict-'not hate' baseline; if the hate-class F1 stays at or near the majority baseline, the reported scores are carried by base-model language knowledge rather than by PEFT.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that LoRA, a parameter-efficient fine-tuning method, is sufficient to make general-purpose LLMs competitive on Devanagari hate speech tasks. For a frozen weight matrix $W$, LoRA learns a low-rank update $\Delta W = AB^T$ and sets $W' = W + AB^T$, so the number of trainable parameters stays small and the update can later be folded back into the weights with no extra inference cost. Applying this recipe to four quantized LLMs, the paper reports that Nemo-Instruct-2407 performs best, with weighted F1 scores of 90.05% for hate detection and 71.47% for target identification. The class-wise results show the remaining weakness: hate class F1 is 53.51% against 94.86% for non-hate, and community-target F1 is 40.74% against 78.04% for individual targets.

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach assumes the pretrained LLMs already know enough Devanagari for LoRA to make useful adjustments, and the paper never measures that prior knowledge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A lightweight LoRA recipe on one 16GB GPU is enough to produce competitive Devanagari hate speech detectors, so deployment no longer requires the compute budget of full fine-tuning.
  • Bigger base models are not automatically better: Nemo-Instruct-2407 (6.97B) beats Llama-3.1-8B on both tasks, so model selection matters more than parameter count.
  • Class imbalance, not the adaptation method, is the main remaining bottleneck: hate-class F1 is 53.51% versus 94.86% for non-hate, and community-target F1 is 40.74% versus 78.04% for individual targets.
  • After training, LoRA updates are folded back into the model weights, so the fine-tuned system runs at the same inference latency as the base model.
  • The identical PEFT pipeline can be carried over to other Devanagari-scripted or low-resource languages, as the paper notes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not report base-model Devanagari language knowledge before adaptation, so a natural next test is to measure zero-shot Devanagari perplexity or classification accuracy on the same test set; that would separate what LoRA adds from what the pretrained model already knows.
  • Since the reported F1 values are weighted averages, macro-F1 or per-class AUC would give a fairer ranking across models when the test set is imbalanced.
  • The same recipe could be probed on code-mixed Hinglish or other Indic scripts; if transfer holds, PEFT could serve as a cheap multilingual moderation baseline.
  • Comparing these LoRA results against an always-majority-class baseline and against full fine-tuning at the same compute budget would sharpen the claim that PEFT, not just the base model, drives the gains.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) system, specifically LoRA, for two shared-task subtasks on Devanagari-scripted data from Thapa et al. (2025): binary hate speech detection and three-way hate speech target identification in Hindi and Nepali. Four quantized LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B, Phi-3-medium, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, and Nemo-Instruct-2407) are fine-tuned with rank-16 LoRA on a 16GB T4 GPU, and the authors report that Nemo achieves the best weighted F1 scores of 90.05% and 71.47% on the two tasks. The paper includes class-wise results and confusion matrices showing much weaker performance on the minority classes (hate F1 53.51%; community target F1 40.74%), which the authors attribute to class imbalance. Code is made publicly available.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper would provide a useful data point: a lightweight, single-GPU LoRA recipe can produce competitive hate speech detectors for two under-resourced Devanagari languages. The evaluation is conducted on an externally curated shared-task test set, and the code release is a genuine practical contribution. However, the paper's central claim of 'efficacy' is not yet supported because no baseline comparisons are reported: there is no majority-class baseline, no full fine-tuning or in-context learning comparison, and no official CHiPSAL baseline or prior published result on the same data. Given the heavily imbalanced test set (88.4% non-hate), the reported weighted F1 can be dominated by majority-class performance, so the paper's contribution is currently a description of a reproducible system rather than an evidence-backed demonstration of effectiveness.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Tables 3 and 4] The central claim that PEFT is 'efficacious' rests entirely on weighted F1 scores, but no baseline is reported. The test set for hate speech detection is 88.4% non-hate (3601 of 4076 instances), so weighted F1 can be high even for a model that predicts the majority class most of the time. To support the efficacy claim, the paper needs at least a majority-class baseline, macro-F1, and preferably a comparison with full fine-tuning, in-context learning, a smaller fine-tuned model such as mBERT or XLM-R, and the official CHiPSAL baselines from Thapa et al. (2025). Without these, the reader cannot distinguish genuine detection ability from majority-class prediction.
  2. [Section 6.1, Tables 5 and 6, Figures 1 and 2] The class-wise results undermine the conclusion in Section 7 that the methodology 'demonstrates good performance.' For the very class the task is designed to detect, Nemo achieves F1 of only 53.51% with recall 45.68%, meaning more than half of hate instances are missed. Similarly, the community target class has F1 40.74% and recall 36.07%. These numbers are not merely a minor caveat: they show that the model largely fails on the classes of primary interest. The paper should either temper the efficacy claim, report a cost-sensitive or class-balanced variant, or provide explicit evidence that these minority-class results are competitive with existing systems on the same data.
  3. [Section 5, Experiments] The experimental section reports a single run for each model and gives no information about random seeds, validation-based early stopping, or variance across runs. LoRA fine-tuning of a 7-8B model on only 484 or 475 validation instances is likely to be sensitive to initialization and data ordering. At minimum, the authors should report results over multiple seeds with standard deviations, or state that only one run was performed and that the reported numbers are therefore point estimates without a measure of stability.
  4. [Section 8, Limitation] The paper's stated assumption that 'the LLMs will have some knowledge of devanagari languages for PEFT to work' is untested. This matters because the authors themselves note in Section 4 that LLMs 'struggle on low resource languages.' A simple zero-shot or few-shot evaluation of the same models on the same test sets would directly probe this assumption and would also provide a natural lower-bound baseline for the LoRA results. As written, the possibility that the reported F1 scores are driven largely by the majority class plus shallow lexical cues is not excluded.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4] The model name is misspelled as 'Lama-3.1' instead of 'Llama-3.1'.
  2. [Section 2] The sentence 'techniques such as in-context learning (ICL) are increase the cost and latency' contains a grammatical error and should be rewritten.
  3. [Section 4] "lantency" should be "latency".
  4. [Section 4] The citation to Cassano et al. (2024) concerns low-resource programming languages, not natural languages; a more directly relevant citation on LLM performance for low-resource natural languages would be appropriate.
  5. [Section 5] The hyperparameter choices (rank=16, alpha=16, no dropout, 2 or 4 epochs) are stated but not justified; a sentence explaining why these values were chosen or that they were not tuned would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Section 6] The claim that target identification is harder because it has three classes and hate speech detection has two is too brief; the three-class task also has a severe minority-class problem (61 community instances in the test set), which is the more relevant explanation for the lower overall F1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: external shared-task test data, fixed LoRA hyperparameters, and reported F1 scores; stated limitations are validity concerns, not circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's central claim ('the results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach') is an empirical evaluation result, not a derivation. Models are fine-tuned with fixed LoRA hyperparameters (rank 16, alpha 16, no dropout) and scored on the held-out test split of the external CHiPSAL shared-task dataset (Thapa et al., 2025), so no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Equation (1) is the standard LoRA update imported from Hu et al. 2021, not a self-defined quantity that encodes the reported outcome. The choice of Nemo as best is a direct comparison of measured test-set metrics in Section 6, Tables 3 and 4. The citations to Patwa et al. 2024, which shares an author, are related-work endorsements of PEFT and are not load-bearing: the same claims are additionally supported by independent citations (Li and Liang 2021; Lester et al. 2021; Liu et al. 2022a), and the paper's own results rest on external test data rather than on that citation. The Limitation in Section 8, that base LLMs must already have some Devanagari knowledge for PEFT to work, is an untested empirical assumption that weakens external validity, but it does not make any claimed output equivalent to an input. Likewise, the low class-wise F1 for the hate class (53.51%, Table 5) and community target class (40.74%, Table 6), together with the absence of a majority-class baseline, are evaluation-validity concerns about the strength of the 'efficacy' conclusion, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities, no new loss functions, and no fitted parameters in the derivation sense. The free parameters are standard LoRA and training hyperparameters, chosen by hand and not tuned. The central claim rests mainly on the domain assumption that base LLMs already know Devanagari, which the paper itself flags as a limitation.

free parameters (5)
  • LoRA rank = 16
    Chosen without reported tuning or sensitivity analysis; directly controls the capacity of the low-rank update.
  • LoRA alpha = 16
    Scaling factor for the LoRA update; set equal to rank with no reported ablation.
  • LoRA dropout = 0
    Regularization hyperparameter; fixed to zero with no justification.
  • Training epochs = 2 for hate detection, 4 for target identification
    Chosen by task, with the paper stating the smaller target-identification set needed more epochs; no early stopping or epoch search reported.
  • 4-bit quantization = nf4
    Quantization setting used to fit models on a 16GB T4; its effect on the reported F1 is not analyzed.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math LoRA low-rank update W' = W + AB^T approximates full fine-tuning sufficiently for classification tasks.
    Invoked in Section 4, Methodology, via Equation (1) and the citation to Hu et al. 2021.
  • domain assumption Base LLMs have some prior knowledge of Devanagari script and Hindi or Nepali, so PEFT can adapt them.
    Stated in Section 8 Limitation: 'we assume that the LLMs will have some knowledge of devanagari languages for PEFT to work.'
  • domain assumption The CHiPSAL shared task dataset annotations are correct and representative of Devanagari hate speech.
    Implicit in Section 3 Data; no annotation quality, inter-annotator agreement, or bias analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The observed performance gap on rare classes is caused by training set class imbalance.
    Claimed in Sections 6 and 6.1 without ablating resampling, loss weighting, or data augmentation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLMsAgainstHate @ NLU of Devanagari Script Languages 2025: Hate Speech Detection and Target Identification in Devanagari Languages via Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning of LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4Q622DB7

@misc{pith2026241217131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLMsAgainstHate @ NLU of Devanagari Script Languages 2025: Hate Speech Detection and Target Identification in Devanagari Languages via Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning of LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4Q622DB7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17131}
}
read the original abstract

The detection of hate speech has become increasingly important in combating online hostility and its real-world consequences. Despite recent advancements, there is limited research addressing hate speech detection in Devanagari-scripted languages, where resources and tools are scarce. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in language-related tasks, traditional fine-tuning approaches are often infeasible given the size of the models. In this paper, we propose a Parameter Efficient Fine tuning (PEFT) based solution for hate speech detection and target identification. We evaluate multiple LLMs on the Devanagari dataset provided by (Thapa et al., 2025), which contains annotated instances in 2 languages - Hindi and Nepali. The results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach in handling Devanagari-scripted content.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17131 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Confusion matrix of Nemo on the test set for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Confusion matrix of Nemo on the test set for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Hany Awadalla, Ahmed Awadallah, et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14219 Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone . Preprint, arXiv:2404.14219

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Mistral AI and NVIDIA. 2023. https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Nemo-Instruct-2407 Mistral nemo-instruct-2407: A 12b parameter transformer model . https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-nemo/. Accessed: 2024-11-10

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Federico Cassano, John Gouwar, Francesca Lucchetti, Claire Schlesinger, Anders Freeman, Carolyn Jane Anderson, Molly Q Feldman, Michael Greenberg, Abhinav Jangda, and Arjun Guha. 2024. Knowledge transfer from high-resource to low-resource programming languages for code llms. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 8(OOPSLA2):677--708

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Sara Court and Micha Elsner. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15625 Shortcomings of llms for low-resource translation: Retrieval and understanding are both the problem . Preprint, arXiv:2406.15625

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Michael Han Daniel Han and Unsloth team. 2023. http://github.com/unslothai/unsloth Unsloth

    2023

  7. [7]

    Mithun Das, Somnath Banerjee, Punyajoy Saha, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.aacl-main.23 Hate speech and offensive language detection in B engali . In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language ...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.aacl-main.23 2022

  8. [8]

    Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, Michael Macy, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, pages 512--515

    work page 2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Paula Fortuna and S \'e rgio Nunes. 2018. A survey on automatic detection of hate speech in text. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(4):1--30

    2018

  3. [11]

    Xiaoyu Guo, Jing Ma, and Arkaitz Zubiaga. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.08326 Nuaa-qmul-aiit at memotion 3: Multi-modal fusion with squeeze-and-excitation for internet meme emotion analysis . Preprint, arXiv:2302.08326

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Farhan Ahmad Jafri, Kritesh Rauniyar, Surendrabikram Thapa, Mohammad Aman Siddiqui, Matloob Khushi, and Usman Naseem. 2024. Chunav: Analyzing hindi hate speech and targeted groups in indian election discourse. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing

    2024

  6. [14]

    Farhan Ahmad Jafri, Mohammad Aman Siddiqui, Surendrabikram Thapa, Kritesh Rauniyar, Usman Naseem, and Imran Razzak. 2023. Uncovering political hate speech during indian election campaign: A new low-resource dataset and baselines

    2023

  7. [15]

    Prashant Kapil, Gitanjali Kumari, Asif Ekbal, Santanu Pal, Arindam Chatterjee, and B. N. Vinutha. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3312993 Hhsd: Hindi hate speech detection leveraging multi-task learning . IEEE Access, 11:101460--101473

    2023

  8. [16]

    Phillips

    Heena Khan and Joshua L. Phillips. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3409334.3452077 Language agnostic model: detecting islamophobic content on social media . In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Southeast Conference, ACMSE '21, page 229–233, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199--22213

    2022

  10. [18]

    Zachary Laub. 2019. Hate speech on social media: Global comparisons. Council on foreign relations, 7

    2019

  11. [19]

    Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.243 The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045--3059, Online a...

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00190 Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation . Preprint, arXiv:2101.00190

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Haokun Liu, Derek Tam, Mohammed Muqeeth, Jay Mohta, Tenghao Huang, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. 2022 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.05638 Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning . Preprint, arXiv:2205.05638

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Haokun Liu, Derek Tam, Mohammed Muqeeth, Jay Mohta, Tenghao Huang, Mohit Bansal, and Colin A Raffel. 2022 b . https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/0cde695b83bd186c1fd456302888454c-Paper-Conference.pdf Few-shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Shreyash Mishra, S Suryavardan, Megha Chakraborty, Parth Patwa, Anku Rani, Aman Chadha, Aishwarya Reganti, Amitava Das, Amit Sheth, Manoj Chinnakotla, et al. 2023 a . Overview of memotion 3: Sentiment and emotion analysis of codemixed hinglish memes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06517

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Shreyash Mishra, S Suryavardan, Parth Patwa, Megha Chakraborty, Anku Rani, Aishwarya Reganti, Aman Chadha, Amitava Das, Amit Sheth, Manoj Chinnakotla, et al. 2023 b . Memotion 3: Dataset on sentiment and emotion analysis of codemixed hindi-english memes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Anil Singh Parihar, Surendrabikram Thapa, and Sushruti Mishra. 2021. Hate speech detection using natural language processing: Applications and challenges. In 2021 5th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (ICOEI), pages 1302--1308. IEEE

    2021

  18. [26]

    Parth Patwa, Mohit Bhardwaj, Vineeth Guptha, Gitanjali Kumari, Shivam Sharma, Srinivas Pykl, Amitava Das, Asif Ekbal, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2021 a . Overview of constraint 2021 shared tasks: Detecting english covid-19 fake news and hindi hostile posts. In Com...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Parth Patwa, Simone Filice, Zhiyu Chen, Giuseppe Castellucci, Oleg Rokhlenko, and Shervin Malmasi. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02422 Enhancing low-resource llms classification with peft and synthetic data . Preprint, arXiv:2404.02422

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Parth Patwa, Srinivas Pykl, Amitava Das, Prerana Mukherjee, and Viswanath Pulabaigari. 2021 b . Hater-o-genius aggression classification using capsule networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.11219

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kritesh Rauniyar, Sweta Poudel, Shuvam Shiwakoti, Surendrabikram Thapa, Junaid Rashid, Jungeun Kim, Muhammad Imran, and Usman Naseem. 2023. Multi-aspect annotation and analysis of nepali tweets on anti-establishment election discourse. IEEE Access

    2023

  22. [30]

    Niloofar Safi Samghabadi, Parth Patwa, Srinivas PYKL, Prerana Mukherjee, Amitava Das, and Thamar Solorio. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.trac-1.20 Aggression and misogyny detection using BERT : A multi-task approach . In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Trolling, Agg...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Kengatharaiyer Sarveswaran, Bal Krishna Bal, Surendrabikram Thapa, Ashwini Vaidya, and Sana Shams. 2025. A brief overview of the first workshop on challenges in processing south asian languages (chipsal). In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Challenges in Processing South A...

    2025

  24. [32]

    Lingfeng Shen, Weiting Tan, Sihao Chen, Yunmo Chen, Jingyu Zhang, Haoran Xu, Boyuan Zheng, Philipp Koehn, and Daniel Khashabi. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13136 The language barrier: Dissecting safety challenges of llms in multilingual contexts . Preprint, arXiv:2401.13136

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Shubham Shukla, Sushama Nagpal, and Sangeeta Sabharwal. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCIS56430.2022.10037649 Hate speech detection in hindi language using bert and convolution neural network . In 2022 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Sys...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Sreelakshmi, B

    K. Sreelakshmi, B. Premjith, Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi, and K. P. Soman. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3358811 Detection of hate speech and offensive language codemix text in dravidian languages using cost-sensitive learning approach . IEEE Access, 12:20064--20090

    2024

  27. [35]

    Surendrabikram Thapa, Kritesh Rauniyar, Farhan Ahmad Jafri, Surabhi Adhikari, Kengatharaiyer Sarveswaran, Bal Krishna Bal, Hariram Veeramani, and Usman Naseem. 2025. Natural language understanding of devanagari script languages: Language identification, hate speech and its tar...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Surendrabikram Thapa, Kritesh Rauniyar, Shuvam Shiwakoti, Sweta Poudel, Usman Naseem, and Mehwish Nasim. 2023. Nehate: Large-scale annotated data shedding light on hate speech in nepali local election discourse. In ECAI 2023, pages 2346--2353. IOS Press

    2023

  29. [37]

    Debapriya Tula, Prathyush Potluri, Shreyas Ms, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Pranjal Sahu, Rohan Sukumaran, and Parth Patwa. 2021. Bitions@ dravidianlangtech-eacl2021: Ensemble of multilingual language models with pseudo labeling for offence detection in dravidian languages. In Proceed...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Debapriya Tula, MS Shreyas, Viswanatha Reddy, Pranjal Sahu, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Prathyush Potluri, Rohan Sukumaran, and Parth Patwa. 2022. Offence detection in dravidian languages using code-mixing index-based focal loss. SN Computer Science, 3(5):330

    2022

  31. [39]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 Attention is all you need . Preprint, arXiv:1706.03762

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Abhishek Velankar, Hrushikesh Patil, Amol Gore, Shubham Salunke, and Raviraj Joshi. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.12200 Hate and offensive speech detection in hindi and marathi . Preprint, arXiv:2110.12200

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lingling Xu, Haoran Xie, Si-Zhao Joe Qin, Xiaohui Tao, and Fu Lee Wang. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.12148 Parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods for pretrained language models: A critical review and assessment . Preprint, arXiv:2312.12148

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jianxin Yang, Jin Xu, Jingren Zhou, Jinze...

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  36. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.