Is LLM an Overconfident Judge? Unveiling the Capabilities of LLMs in Detecting Offensive Language with Annotation Disagreement (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing studies focus on evaluating large language models' ability to handle disagreement cases. |
| Approach: | They evaluate the performance of large language models in detecting offensive language at varying levels of agreement. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves detection accuracy and model alignment with human judgment by using disagreement samples in training. |
Similar Papers
Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Our work provides preliminary guidelines and highlights the nuances of applying Large Language models in culturally sensitive cases. |
| Approach: | They propose to use large language models to help with content moderation to assess how well the needs of diverse groups are reflected in annotated posts. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is able to leverage community-based flagging efforts and exposure to adversaries. |
Don’t Go To Extremes: Revealing the Excessive Sensitivity and Calibration Limitations of LLMs in Implicit Hate Speech Detection (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Several studies have examined whether large language models exhibit bias or discrimination against individuals or groups in terms of protected attributes like race, gender, or religion. |
| Approach: | They evaluate LLMs' ability to detect implicit hate speech and express confidence in their responses by considering prompt patterns and mainstream uncertainty estimation methods. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models exhibit two extremes: (1) excessive sensitivity towards groups or topics that may cause fairness issues, resulting in misclassifying benign statements as hate speech; (2) confidence scores for each method excessively concentrate on a fixed range, remaining unchanged regardless of the dataset’s complexity. |
Can Reasoning Help Large Language Models Capture Human Annotator Disagreement? (2026.eacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Jingwei Ni, Yu Fan, Vilém Zouhar, Donya Rooein, Alexander Miserlis Hoyle, Mrinmaya Sachan, Markus Leippold, Dirk Hovy, Elliott Ash
| Challenge: | Variation in human annotation (i.e., disagreements) is common in NLP, but it is unclear whether it is possible to model this variation in LLMs. |
| Approach: | They evaluate the influence of different reasoning settings on LLM disagreement modeling . RLVR-style reasoning degrades performance in disagreement modeling, they find . |
| Outcome: | The proposed reasoning settings improve LLM disagreement modeling, while RLVR-style reasoning degrades it. |
Where do LLMs Encode the Knowledge to Assess the Ambiguity? (2025.coling-industry)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | False sizing of large language models can generate unreliable responses . |
| Approach: | They propose a method to train large language models without ambiguity labels . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method detects ambiguous input prompts better than representations from the final layer. |
Aligning Black-box Language Models with Human Judgments (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges to evaluate recommendation systems, search engines, and other subjective tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to align LLM judgments with individual human evaluators or their aggregated judgments without retraining or fine-tuning the LLM. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework achieves 142% improvement in agreement across 29 tasks and exceeds inter-human agreement on four out of six tasks. |
The Promises and Pitfalls of LLM Annotations in Dataset Labeling: a Case Study on Media Bias Detection (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
Tomáš Horych, Christoph Mandl, Terry Ruas, Andre Greiner-Petter, Bela Gipp, Akiko Aizawa, Timo Spinde
| Challenge: | Recent research suggests using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the annotation process, reducing these costs while maintaining data quality. |
| Approach: | They propose to use Large Language Models to automate annotation process and train classifiers on large datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms all of the annotator LLMs on two media bias benchmark datasets (BABE and BASIL) while maintaining data quality. |
Can Large Language Models Capture Dissenting Human Voices? (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive achievements in solving a broad range of tasks. |
| Approach: | They evaluate the performance and alignment of large language models with humans using Monte Carlo Estimation and Log Probability Estimationic methods to estimate the multinomial distribution. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models fail to capture human disagreement distribution and inference and human alignment performance plunge even further on data samples with high disagreement levels raising concerns about their natural language understanding ability and representativeness to a larger human population. |
Confident, Calibrated, or Complicit: Safety Alignment and Ideological Bias in LLM Hate Speech Detection (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | censored models outperform uncensoreed counterparts in accuracy and robustness, achieving 69.0% accuracy versus 64.1% strict accuracy. |
| Approach: | They examine how large language models with minimal safety alignment compare with more heavily aligned counterparts when deployed using political personas. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms uncensored models in accuracy and robustness, while uncensors are more malleable to ideological framing. |
Reasons to Reject? Aligning Language Models with Judgments (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a new framework for aligning large language models with judgments is proposed to help with alignment . a framework that allows for fine-grained inappropriate content detection and correction based on judgments . large language model alignment is critical for making artificial intelligence a reliable ally for humanity . |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that allows for fine-grained inappropriate content detection and correction based on judgments. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework beats the 175B DaVinci003 and improves on AlpacaEval using judgments. |
Bias in the Mirror : Are LLMs opinions robust to their own adversarial attacks (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on large language models lacks robustness, highlighting the limitations of such models. |
| Approach: | They propose a novel approach where two LLMs engage in self-debate to persuade a neutral version of the model. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach examines whether large language models are robust during interactions and whether they are susceptible to reinforcing misinformation or shifting to harmful viewpoints. |