This paper addresses the problem of Bangla hate speech identification, a socially impactful yet linguistically challenging task. As part of the "Bangla Multi-task Hate Speech Identification" shared task at the BLP Workshop, IJCNLP-AACL 2025, our team "Retriv" participated in all three subtasks: (1A) hate type classification, (1B) target group identification, and (1C) joint detection of type, severity, and target. For subtasks 1A and 1B, we employed a soft-voting ensemble of transformer models (BanglaBERT, MuRIL, IndicBERTv2). For subtask 1C, we trained three multitask variants and aggregated their predictions through a weighted voting ensemble. Our systems achieved micro-f1 scores of 72.75% (1A) and 72.69% (1B), and a weighted micro-f1 score of 72.62% (1C). On the shared task leaderboard, these corresponded to 9th, 10th, and 7th positions, respectively. These results highlight the promise of transformer ensembles and weighted multitask frameworks for advancing Bangla hate speech detection in low-resource contexts. We made experimental scripts publicly available for the community.

In this paper, we investigate how personalising Large Language Models (Persona-LLMs) with annotator personas affects their sensitivity to hate speech, particularly regarding biases linked to shared or differing identities between annotators and targets. To this end, we employ Google's Gemini and OpenAI's GPT-4.1-mini models and two persona-prompting methods: shallow persona prompting and a deeply contextualised persona development based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to incorporate richer persona profiles. We analyse the impact of using in-group and out-group annotator personas on the models' detection performance and fairness across diverse social groups. This work bridges psychological insights on group identity with advanced NLP techniques, demonstrating that incorporating socio-demographic attributes into LLMs can address bias in automated hate speech detection. Our results highlight both the potential and limitations of persona-based approaches in reducing bias, offering valuable insights for developing more equitable hate speech detection systems.

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.

There are many natural models for noise.

The automatic evaluation of Language Model (LM) responses is a critical piece in the development of benchmarks and metrics, both for model training and quality assessment of production model endpoints. The current approaches to response classification relies on methods that are too expensive (i.e. LLM-as-a-Judge) or that are far from real-world conditions (string-matching, logprob). In this paper, a structure-free evaluation method is presented. The method makes use of semantic embedding distances to match target candidates with arbitrary LM-generated text, resulting in a robust classification of the response at a relatively low compute cost (embedding models of less than $10B$ parameters). The results show a regression score of ~0.97 and an accuracy of ~96% against human annotators, tested over 3 data sets and 3 different LM architectures.

We investigate the efficacy of Large Language Models (LLMs) in detecting implicit and explicit hate speech, examining whether models with minimal safety alignment (uncensored) might provide more objective classification capabilities compared to their heavily-aligned (censored) counterparts. While uncensored models theoretically offer a less constrained perspective free from moral guardrails that could bias classification decisions, our results reveal a surprising trade-off: censored models significantly outperform their uncensored counterparts in both accuracy and robustness, achieving 78.7% versus 64.1% strict accuracy. However, this enhanced performance comes with its own limitation -- the safety alignment acts as a strong ideological anchor, making censored models resistant to persona-based influence, while uncensored models prove highly malleable to ideological framing. Furthermore, we identify critical failures across all models in understanding nuanced language such as irony. We also find alarming fairness disparities in performance across different targeted groups and systemic overconfidence that renders self-reported certainty unreliable. These findings challenge the notion of LLMs as objective arbiters and highlight the need for more sophisticated auditing frameworks that account for fairness, calibration, and ideological consistency.

Automatic toxic language detection is critical for creating safe, inclusive online spaces. However, it is a highly subjective task, with perceptions of toxic language shaped by community norms and lived experience. Existing toxicity detection models are typically trained on annotations that collapse diverse annotator perspectives into a single ground truth, erasing important context-specific notions of toxicity such as reclaimed language. To address this, we introduce MODELCITIZENS, a dataset of 6.8K social media posts and 40K toxicity annotations across diverse identity groups. To capture the role of conversational context on toxicity, typical of social media posts, we augment MODELCITIZENS posts with LLM-generated conversational scenarios. State-of-the-art toxicity detection tools (e.g. OpenAI Moderation API, GPT-o4-mini) underperform on MODELCITIZENS, with further degradation on context-augmented posts. Finally, we release LLAMACITIZEN-8B and GEMMACITIZEN-12B, LLaMA- and Gemma-based models finetuned on MODELCITIZENS, which outperform GPT-o4-mini by 5.5% on in-distribution evaluations. Our findings highlight the importance of community-informed annotation and modeling for inclusive content moderation. The data, models and code are available at https://github.com/asuvarna31/modelcitizens.

The assessment of legal problems requires the consideration of a specific legal system and its levels of abstraction, from constitutional law to statutory law to case law. The extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) internalize such legal systems is unknown. In this paper, we propose and investigate different approaches to condition LLMs at different levels of abstraction in legal systems. This paper examines different approaches to conditioning LLMs at multiple levels of abstraction in legal systems to detect potentially punishable hate speech. We focus on the task of classifying whether a specific social media posts falls under the criminal offense of incitement to hatred as prescribed by the German Criminal Code. The results show that there is still a significant performance gap between models and legal experts in the legal assessment of hate speech, regardless of the level of abstraction with which the models were conditioned. Our analysis revealed, that models conditioned on abstract legal knowledge lacked deep task understanding, often contradicting themselves and hallucinating answers, while models using concrete legal knowledge performed reasonably well in identifying relevant target groups, but struggled with classifying target conducts.

Identifying hate speech content in the Arabic language is challenging due to the rich quality of dialectal variations. This study introduces a multilabel hate speech dataset in the Arabic language. We have collected 10000 Arabic tweets and annotated each tweet, whether it contains offensive content or not. If a text contains offensive content, we further classify it into different hate speech targets such as religion, gender, politics, ethnicity, origin, and others. A text can contain either single or multiple targets. Multiple annotators are involved in the data annotation task. We calculated the inter-annotator agreement, which was reported to be 0.86 for offensive content and 0.71 for multiple hate speech targets. Finally, we evaluated the data annotation task by employing a different transformers-based model in which AraBERTv2 outperformed with a micro-F1 score of 0.7865 and an accuracy of 0.786.