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.<n>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: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• 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

• LINGOLY-TOO: Disentangling Memorisation from Reasoning with Linguistic Templatisation and Orthographic Obfuscation [1.2576388595811496]
  We introduce a framework for producing linguistic reasoning problems that reduces the effect of memorisation in model performance estimates. We apply this framework to develop LINGOLY-TOO, a challenging benchmark for linguistic reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T19:57:47Z)
• 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)
• Do LLMs Understand Ambiguity in Text? A Case Study in Open-world Question Answering [15.342415325821063]
  Ambiguity in natural language poses significant challenges to Large Language Models (LLMs) used for open-domain question answering. We compare off-the-shelf and few-shot LLM performance, focusing on measuring the impact of explicit disambiguation strategies. We demonstrate how simple, training-free, token-level disambiguation methods may be effectively used to improve LLM performance for ambiguous question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T10:27:26Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• 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)
• Analyzing LLM Behavior in Dialogue Summarization: Unveiling Circumstantial Hallucination Trends [38.86240794422485]
  We evaluate the faithfulness of large language models for dialogue summarization. Our evaluation reveals subtleties as to what constitutes a hallucination. We introduce two prompt-based approaches for fine-grained error detection that outperform existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T17:49:47Z)
• 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)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• 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)
• Shortcut Learning of Large Language Models in Natural Language Understanding [119.45683008451698]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance on a series of natural language understanding tasks. They might rely on dataset bias and artifacts as shortcuts for prediction. This has significantly affected their generalizability and adversarial robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-25T03:51:39Z)
• 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.