While recent research increasingly emphasizes the value of human-LLM collaboration in competitive programming and proposes numerous empirical methods, a comprehensive understanding remains elusive due to the fragmented nature of existing studies and their use of diverse, application-specific human feedback. Thus, our work serves a three-fold purpose: First, we present the first taxonomy of human feedback consolidating the entire programming process, which promotes fine-grained evaluation. Second, we introduce ELABORATIONSET, a novel programming dataset specifically designed for human-LLM collaboration, meticulously annotated to enable large-scale simulated human feedback and facilitate costeffective real human interaction studies. Third, we introduce ELABORATION, a novel benchmark to facilitate a thorough assessment of human-LLM competitive programming. With ELABORATION, we pinpoint strengthes and weaknesses of existing methods, thereby setting the foundation for future improvement. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/SCUNLP/ELABORATION

Interpretations of a single sentence can vary, particularly when its context is lost. This paper aims to simulate how readers perceive content with varying toxicity levels by generating diverse interpretations of out-of-context sentences. By modeling toxicity, we can anticipate misunderstandings and reveal hidden toxic meanings. Our proposed decoding strategy explicitly controls toxicity in the set of generated interpretations by (i) aligning interpretation toxicity with the input, (ii) relaxing toxicity constraints for more toxic input sentences, and (iii) promoting diversity in toxicity levels within the set of generated interpretations. Experimental results show that our method improves alignment with human-written interpretations in both syntax and semantics while reducing model prediction uncertainty.

Language is a deep-rooted means of perpetration of stereotypes and discrimination. Large Language Models (LLMs), now a pervasive technology in our everyday lives, can cause extensive harm when prone to generating toxic responses. The standard way to address this issue is to align the LLM, which, however, dampens the issue without constituting a definitive solution. Therefore, testing LLM even after alignment efforts remains crucial for detecting any residual deviations with respect to ethical standards. We present EvoTox, an automated testing framework for LLMs' inclination to toxicity, providing a way to quantitatively assess how much LLMs can be pushed towards toxic responses even in the presence of alignment. The framework adopts an iterative evolution strategy that exploits the interplay between two LLMs, the System Under Test (SUT) and the Prompt Generator steering SUT responses toward higher toxicity. The toxicity level is assessed by an automated oracle based on an existing toxicity classifier. We conduct a quantitative and qualitative empirical evaluation using four state-of-the-art LLMs as evaluation subjects having increasing complexity (7-13 billion parameters). Our quantitative evaluation assesses the cost-effectiveness of four alternative versions of EvoTox against existing baseline methods, based on random search, curated datasets of toxic prompts, and adversarial attacks. Our qualitative assessment engages human evaluators to rate the fluency of the generated prompts and the perceived toxicity of the responses collected during the testing sessions. Results indicate that the effectiveness, in terms of detected toxicity level, is significantly higher than the selected baseline methods (effect size up to 1.0 against random search and up to 0.99 against adversarial attacks). Furthermore, EvoTox yields a limited cost overhead (from 22% to 35% on average).

Social media platforms have a vital role in the modern world, serving as conduits for communication, the exchange of ideas, and the establishment of networks. However, the misuse of these platforms through toxic comments, which can range from offensive remarks to hate speech, is a concerning issue. This study focuses on identifying toxic comments in the Bengali language targeting three specific groups: transgender people, indigenous people, and migrant people, from multiple social media sources. The study delves into the intricate process of identifying and categorizing toxic language while considering the varying degrees of toxicity: high, medium, and low. The methodology involves creating a dataset, manual annotation, and employing pre-trained transformer models like Bangla-BERT, bangla-bert-base, distil-BERT, and Bert-base-multilingual-cased for classification. Diverse assessment metrics such as accuracy, recall, precision, and F1-score are employed to evaluate the model's effectiveness. The experimental findings reveal that Bangla-BERT surpasses alternative models, achieving an F1-score of 0.8903. This research exposes the complexity of toxicity in Bangla social media dialogues, revealing its differing impacts on diverse demographic groups.