Unveiling the Capabilities of Large Language Models in Detecting Offensive Language with Annotation Disagreement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06207v2
• Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:03:10 GMT
• Title: Unveiling the Capabilities of Large Language Models in Detecting Offensive Language with Annotation Disagreement
• Authors: Junyu Lu, Kai Ma, Kaichun Wang, Kelaiti Xiao, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Bo Xu, Liang Yang, Hongfei Lin,
• Abstract summary: This study systematically evaluates the performance of multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) in detecting offensive language. We analyze binary classification accuracy, examine the relationship between model confidence and human disagreement, and explore how disagreement samples influence model decision-making.
• Score: 22.992484902761994
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have become essential for offensive language detection, yet their ability to handle annotation disagreement remains underexplored. Disagreement samples, which arise from subjective interpretations, pose a unique challenge due to their ambiguous nature. Understanding how LLMs process these cases, particularly their confidence levels, can offer insight into their alignment with human annotators. This study systematically evaluates the performance of multiple LLMs in detecting offensive language at varying levels of annotation agreement. We analyze binary classification accuracy, examine the relationship between model confidence and human disagreement, and explore how disagreement samples influence model decision-making during few-shot learning and instruction fine-tuning. Our findings reveal that LLMs struggle with low-agreement samples, often exhibiting overconfidence in these ambiguous cases. However, utilizing disagreement samples in training improves both detection accuracy and model alignment with human judgment. These insights provide a foundation for enhancing LLM-based offensive language detection in real-world moderation tasks.

Related papers

• Exploring Robustness of LLMs to Sociodemographically-Conditioned Paraphrasing [7.312170216336085]
  We take a broader approach to explore a wider range of variations across sociodemographic dimensions. We extend the SocialIQA dataset to create diverse paraphrased sets conditioned on sociodemographic styles. We find that demographic-specific paraphrasing significantly impacts the performance of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T17:50:06Z)
• Counterfactual Samples Constructing and Training for Commonsense Statements Estimation [17.970740197590693]
  Plausibility Estimation plays a crucial role for enabling language models to objectively comprehend the real world. They lack two key traits of an ideal PE model: language-explainable and commonsense-sensitive. We propose a novel model-agnostic method, referred to as Commonsense Counterfactual Samples Generating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T20:18:52Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Language Confusion in LLMs [76.96033035093204]
  We evaluate 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts. We find that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion. We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T17:03:51Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models [52.891205009620364]
  In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:46:24Z)
• Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks [58.32362243122714]
  We evaluate the ability of current-generation auto-regressive language models to handle negation. We show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T01:16:37Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• We're Afraid Language Models Aren't Modeling Ambiguity [136.8068419824318]
  Managing ambiguity is a key part of human language understanding. We characterize ambiguity in a sentence by its effect on entailment relations with another sentence. We show that a multilabel NLI model can flag political claims in the wild that are misleading due to ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-27T17:57:58Z)
• Empowering Language Understanding with Counterfactual Reasoning [141.48592718583245]
  We propose a Counterfactual Reasoning Model, which mimics the counterfactual thinking by learning from few counterfactual samples. In particular, we devise a generation module to generate representative counterfactual samples for each factual sample, and a retrospective module to retrospect the model prediction by comparing the counterfactual and factual samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-06T06:36:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.