From Self to Other: Evaluating Demographic Perspective-Taking in LLM Hate Speech Annotation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.06266v1
• Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 15:09:58 GMT
• Title: From Self to Other: Evaluating Demographic Perspective-Taking in LLM Hate Speech Annotation
• Abstract summary: Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale.<n>We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction).<n>Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from
• Score: 5.762370982168011
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

Related papers

• Attribute-Based Diagnosis of LLM Alignment with Hate Speech Annotations [48.69228180369574]
  Hate speech annotation is costly, subjective, and prone to annotator disagreement.<n>We analyze how well large language models (LLMs) align with human judgments.<n>We reconstruct continuous hate speech scores from the Measuring Hate Speech corpus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T13:44:48Z)
• Stable Behavior, Limited Variation: Persona Validity in LLM Agents for Urban Sentiment Perception [4.732324753420076]
  We use factorial set of personas spanning gender, economic status, political orientation, and personality to evaluate urban scene images.<n>Results show strong convergence among agents sharing a persona, indicating stable and reproducible behavior.<n>Agents also exhibit an extremity bias, collapsing intermediate sentiment categories common in human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T15:59:11Z)
• Persona Prompting as a Lens on LLM Social Reasoning [5.001433675691563]
  For socially sensitive tasks like hate speech detection, the quality of explanations from Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial.<n>While Persona prompting (PP) is increasingly used as a way to steer model towards user-specific generation, its effect on model rationales remains underexplored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T16:41:17Z)
• Measuring Social Bias in Vision-Language Models with Face-Only Counterfactuals from Real Photos [79.03150233804458]
  Real-world images entangle race and gender with correlated factors such as background and clothing, obscuring attribution.<n>We propose a textbfface-only counterfactual evaluation paradigm<n>We generate counterfactual variants by editing only facial attributes related to race and gender, keeping all other visual factors fixed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T14:35:06Z)
• Us-vs-Them bias in Large Language Models [0.569978892646475]
  We find consistent ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative associations across foundational large language models.<n>For personas examined, conservative personas exhibit greater outgroup hostility, whereas liberal personas display stronger ingroup solidarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T07:11:22Z)
• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• Scaling Data Diversity for Fine-Tuning Language Models in Human Alignment [84.32768080422349]
  Alignment with human preference prevents large language models from generating misleading or toxic content. We propose a new formulation of prompt diversity, implying a linear correlation with the final performance of LLMs after fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T07:08:55Z)
• Sociodemographic Prompting is Not Yet an Effective Approach for Simulating Subjective Judgments with LLMs [13.744746481528711]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to simulate human responses across diverse contexts.<n>We evaluate nine popular LLMs on their ability to understand demographic differences in two subjective judgment tasks: politeness and offensiveness.<n>We find that in zero-shot settings, most models' predictions for both tasks align more closely with labels from White participants than those from Asian or Black participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:24Z)
• Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models [38.180696489079985]
  This paper proposes a novel framework for probing language models for social biases by assessing disparate treatment. We curate SoFa, a large-scale benchmark designed to address the limitations of existing fairness collections. We show that biases within language models are more nuanced than acknowledged, indicating a broader scope of encoded biases than previously recognized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T16:35:59Z)
• Fair Abstractive Summarization of Diverse Perspectives [103.08300574459783]
  A fair summary should provide a comprehensive coverage of diverse perspectives without underrepresenting certain groups. We first formally define fairness in abstractive summarization as not underrepresenting perspectives of any groups of people. We propose four reference-free automatic metrics by measuring the differences between target and source perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T03:38:55Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Tasks [45.14664901245331]
  A crucial problem in hate speech detection is determining whether a statement is offensive to a demographic group. We construct a model that predicts individual annotator ratings on potentially offensive text. We find that annotator ratings can be predicted using their demographic information and opinions on online content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-11T07:55:20Z)
• Mitigating Face Recognition Bias via Group Adaptive Classifier [53.15616844833305]
  This work aims to learn a fair face representation, where faces of every group could be more equally represented. Our work is able to mitigate face recognition bias across demographic groups while maintaining the competitive accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-13T06:43:37Z)

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.