P Piot

Paloma Piot, Javier Parapar

Automatic detection of hate and abusive language is essential to combat its online spread. Moreover, recognising and explaining hate speech serves to educate people about its negative effects. However, most current detection models operate as black boxes, lacking interpretability and explainability. In this context, Large Language Models (LLMs) have proven effective for hate speech detection and to promote interpretability. Nevertheless, they are computationally costly to run. In this work, we propose distilling big language models by using Chain-of-Thought to extract explanations that support the hate speech classification task. Having small language models for these tasks will contribute to their use in operational settings. In this paper, we demonstrate that distilled models deliver explanations of the same quality as larger models while surpassing them in classification performance. This dual capability, classifying and explaining, advances hate speech detection making it more affordable, understandable and actionable.

Paloma Piot, David Otero, Patricia Martín-Rodilla et al.

Hate speech spreads widely online, harming individuals and communities, making automatic detection essential for large-scale moderation, yet detecting it remains difficult. Part of the challenge lies in subjectivity: what one person flags as hate speech, another may see as benign. Traditional annotation agreement metrics, such as Cohen's $κ$, oversimplify this disagreement, treating it as an error rather than meaningful diversity. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) promise scalable annotation, but prior studies demonstrate that they cannot fully replace human judgement, especially in subjective tasks. In this work, we reexamine LLM reliability using a subjectivity-aware framework, cross-Rater Reliability (xRR), revealing that even under fairer lens, LLMs still diverge from humans. Yet this limitation opens an opportunity: we find that LLM-generated annotations can reliably reflect performance trends across classification models, correlating with human evaluations. We test this by examining whether LLM-generated annotations preserve the relative ordering of model performance derived from human evaluation (i.e. whether models ranked as more reliable by human annotators preserve the same order when evaluated with LLM-generated labels). Our results show that, although LLMs differ from humans at the instance level, they reproduce similar ranking and classification patterns, suggesting their potential as proxy evaluators. While not a substitute for human annotators, they might serve as a scalable proxy for evaluation in subjective NLP tasks.

Paloma Piot, Patricia Martín-Rodilla, Javier Parapar

Hate speech represents a pervasive and detrimental form of online discourse, often manifested through an array of slurs, from hateful tweets to defamatory posts. As such speech proliferates, it connects people globally and poses significant social, psychological, and occasionally physical threats to targeted individuals and communities. Current computational linguistic approaches for tackling this phenomenon rely on labelled social media datasets for training. For unifying efforts, our study advances in the critical need for a comprehensive meta-collection, advocating for an extensive dataset to help counteract this problem effectively. We scrutinized over 60 datasets, selectively integrating those pertinent into MetaHate. This paper offers a detailed examination of existing collections, highlighting their strengths and limitations. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the existing datasets, paving the way for training more robust and adaptable models. These enhanced models are essential for effectively combating the dynamic and complex nature of hate speech in the digital realm.

Dennis Assenmacher, Paloma Piot, Katarina Laken et al.

Digital dehumanization, although a critical issue, remains largely overlooked within the field of computational linguistics and Natural Language Processing. The prevailing approach in current research concentrating primarily on a single aspect of dehumanization that identifies overtly negative statements as its core marker. This focus, while crucial for understanding harmful online communications, inadequately addresses the broader spectrum of dehumanization. Specifically, it overlooks the subtler forms of dehumanization that, despite not being overtly offensive, still perpetuate harmful biases against marginalized groups in online interactions. These subtler forms can insidiously reinforce negative stereotypes and biases without explicit offensiveness, making them harder to detect yet equally damaging. Recognizing this gap, we use different sampling methods to collect a theory-informed bilingual dataset from Twitter and Reddit. Using crowdworkers and experts to annotate 16,000 instances on a document- and span-level, we show that our dataset covers the different dimensions of dehumanization. This dataset serves as both a training resource for machine learning models and a benchmark for evaluating future dehumanization detection techniques. To demonstrate its effectiveness, we fine-tune ML models on this dataset, achieving performance that surpasses state-of-the-art models in zero and few-shot in-context settings.

Paloma Piot, Diego Sánchez, Javier Parapar

Online harms are a growing problem in digital spaces, putting user safety at risk and reducing trust in social media platforms. One of the most persistent forms of harm is hate speech. To address this, we need tools that combine the speed and scale of automated systems with the judgment and insight of human moderators. These tools should not only find harmful content but also explain their decisions clearly, helping to build trust and understanding. In this paper, we present WATCHED, a chatbot designed to support content moderators in tackling hate speech. The chatbot is built as an Artificial Intelligence Agent system that uses Large Language Models along with several specialised tools. It compares new posts with real examples of hate speech and neutral content, uses a BERT-based classifier to help flag harmful messages, looks up slang and informal language using sources like Urban Dictionary, generates chain-of-thought reasoning, and checks platform guidelines to explain and support its decisions. This combination allows the chatbot not only to detect hate speech but to explain why content is considered harmful, grounded in both precedent and policy. Experimental results show that our proposed method surpasses existing state-of-the-art methods, reaching a macro F1 score of 0.91. Designed for moderators, safety teams, and researchers, the tool helps reduce online harms by supporting collaboration between AI and human oversight.

Paloma Piot, Patricia Martín-Rodilla, Javier Parapar

Commercial Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently incorporated memory features to deliver personalised responses. This memory retains details such as user demographics and individual characteristics, allowing LLMs to adjust their behaviour based on personal information. However, the impact of integrating personalised information into the context has not been thoroughly assessed, leading to questions about its influence on LLM behaviour. Personalisation can be challenging, particularly with sensitive topics. In this paper, we examine various state-of-the-art LLMs to understand their behaviour in different personalisation scenarios, specifically focusing on hate speech. We prompt the models to assume country-specific personas and use different languages for hate speech detection. Our findings reveal that context personalisation significantly influences LLMs' responses in this sensitive area. To mitigate these unwanted biases, we fine-tune the LLMs by penalising inconsistent hate speech classifications made with and without country or language-specific context. The refined models demonstrate improved performance in both personalised contexts and when no context is provided.