Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive performance across a wide range of general NLP tasks; however, their effectiveness in sensitive domains, such as hate speech detection, remains less clear. Prior studies comparing prompted LLMs with state-of-the-art encoder-based models (e.g., BERT variants (Roy et al., 2023; Dönmez et al., 2024)) have shown only marginal gains, suggesting that LLMs may not excel in hate speech detection or mitigation. In this work, we revisit this question through the lens of instruction tuning. By thoroughly unifying 36 English hate speech datasets spanning multiple labeling schemes, we fine-tune a generalist LLM, based on Qwen3 (Qwen Team, 2025), specifically for hate speech mitigation. Our results demonstrate not only state-of-the-art performance on in-domain benchmarks but also substantial improvements in cross-domain and cross-lingual generalization--areas where encoder-based specialist classifiers often struggle.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: In this work, we would like to close the gap in understanding if instruction-tuned general-purpose LLMs (i.e., HIPPO, right) are more robust and precise detectors of hate speech than specially-tuned LMs (i.e., BERT and Llama, left).
Dataset
Attribution
Train
Test
Domain
Label Type
(Sub)Tasks
CAD
Vidgen et al. (2021)
13423
Multilabel
1
CAT-LARGE
Pavlopoulos et al. (2020)
19870
Binary
1
CONAN
Chung et al. (2019)
408
Synthetic
Generation
1
ConvAbuse
Cercas Curry et al. (2021)
4013
Chatbot
Hierarchical
4
DialoCONAN
Bonaldi et al. (2022)
1299
Synthetic
Generation
1
EAP
Vidgen et al. (2020)
19989
Multiclass
1
Table 1: List of datasets used and the number of examples, domain, and type of labels. Domains include Twitter ( ), Reddit ( ), Gab ( ), Facebook ( ), Wikipedia ( ), YouTube ( ), and Civil Comments (CC), among others.
Dataset
Type
HIPPO
Indiv.
GPT5
Best
Best Arch.
Best Source
AMI18 - A
Binary
81.0
74.8
70.9
71.0
BERT
Muti and Barrón-Cedeño (2022)
AMI18 - B
Binary x2
73.4
64.3
44.4
42.9
BERT
Pamungkas et al. (2020b)
EDOS - A
Binary
83.7
85.0
73.0
88.4
PaLM
Sorensen et al. (2023)
EDOS - B
Multiclass
71.2
65.5
41.9
73.3
PaLM
Sorensen et al. (2023)
EDOS - C
Multiclass
51.8
47.5
41.0
56.1
DeBERTa-v3
Zhou (2023)
HASOC19 - A
Binary
76.7
79.0
72.7
79.5
RoBERTa †
Kovács et al. (2021)
Table 2: Comparison of our unified model ( HIPPO , based on Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 ) to individually trained models (Indiv.), GPT5-mini, and to the best performing models in literature. Bold values denote the best results per dataset. † denotes ensembles.
Dataset
0.6B
4B
32B
Best
AMI18 - A
28.1
81.0
82.9
71.0
AMI18 - B
26.0
73.4
75.5
42.9
EDOS - A
23.5
83.7
87.0
88.4
EDOS - B
42.0
71.2
74.7
73.3
EDOS - C
27.5
51.8
57.9
56.1
HASOC19 - A
22.2
76.7
76.6
79.5
Table 3: Effectiveness of instruction tuning on varying model sizes, compared to the SOTA. Blue values indicate scores that outperform the SOTA. Bold values denote the best results per dataset.
Dataset
Zero-shot
LOO
Full
AMI18 - A
59.8
78.4
81.0
AMI18 - B †
41.6
42.1
73.4
EDOS - A
66.7
76.0
83.7
EDOS - B ‡
37.9
43.4
71.2
EDOS - C ‡
20.2
27.6
51.8
HASOC19 - A
71.5
70.3
76.7
Table 4: Comparison of zero-shot to leave-one-out (LOO) and full HIPPO (i.e., unified) training. ‡ denotes tasks that do not have equivalent tasks in training of Qwen3-4B . † denotes partial equivalence: AMI18-B and HatEval19-B are composed of 2 tasks, both of which include 1 task that has no similar task in training. Blue values indicate scores that outperform the zero-shot baseline. Bold values denote the best results per dataset.
Figure 2: Cross-lingual and functional performance of the zero-shot, minimally-trained, and fully-trained HIPPO . Note: Unlike for English, HASOC19 does not have a Task C for German and Hindi.
Figure 3: Performance of the fully-trained HIPPO on all languages (ordered by performance) of HateCheck, per functional task. Above the black line are hateful functionalities, below are non-hateful. Only functionalities shared across all languages are shown.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Value
Batch size
64
Learning rate
1e-4
Weight decay
1e-3
Warmup ratio
1e-2
Epochs
3
LoRA rank
32
Appendix
Table 5: Hyperparameters used in training.
Figure 4: Top-level label distribution of all datasets.
Figure 5: Fine-grained label distribution of the hierarchical datasets.
Resource
License
Homepage
CAD
CC BY 4.0
https://github.com/dongpng/cad_naacl2021
CAT-LARGE
Apache-2.0
https://github.com/ipavlopoulos/context_toxicity
CONAN
Research Only
https://github.com/marcoguerini/CONAN
ConvAbuse
CC BY 4.0
https://github.com/amandacurry/convabuse
DialoCONAN
Research Only
https://github.com/marcoguerini/CONAN
EAP
CC BY 4.0
https://zenodo.org/records/3816667
Appendix
Table 6: Overview of the licenses associated with each resource utilized in this work for experiments.
Dataset
Examples
Label
AMI18 Subtask 1
There are some wins that will make u go hysterical. Some makes you happy but same time you are sad
Non-misogyny
Shut the fck up you fcking monkey jew btch cnt ngger dck l*cking
Misogyny
he thing is if a woman speaks out about rape on Nigerian twitter.The backlash would be shocking. It’s not good for the mind. Hence silence
Non-misogyny
EDOS Subtask 2
MRA stuff like men saying they wished they hadn’t had daughters, calling ALL American women wh*res, etc. Evidence if this?
Threats
Is this ASD (anti sl*t defence) or what? How do I prevent this? Spend more time with her before and after.
Derogation
Not our fault she chose to date an abusive sc*mbag.
Animosity
Appendix
Table 7: Examples from a few classification datasets used in our work for experiments. We included multiple subtasks and domains, covering just high-level classification of hate/non-hate as well as other more fine-grained labels.
Dataset
Examples
ToxicSpans
Input Text : your an idot, this is a tax based on a lie Toxic Span : idot
Input Text : Have you walked around Denver lately , or Civic Center Park ? These poor homeless people are pgs ! Toxic Span : pgs
Input Text : Mron. Illegals have no Constitutional rights Toxic Span : Mron
ParaDetox
Input Text : the police dont have time for this cr*p. Detoxified : The police have no time for this.
Input Text : its a crock of sh*t , and you know it . Detoxified : It’s senseless, you know
Input Text : i didnt vote for the liar Detoxified : I didn’t vote for him
Appendix
Table 8: Examples from a few generation datasets used in our work for experiments. We included not only classification, but generation tasks showing that instruction-tuned model can be used for more variety of proactive ways for hate speech mitigation.
Dataset
Llama3.2
Phi4-mini
Qwen3
HIPPO
AMI18 - A
78.7
75.7
79.2
81.0
AMI18 - B
70.3
54.8
72.5
73.4
EDOS - A
83.5
83.5
84.6
83.7
EDOS - B
70.0
61.9
67.5
71.2
EDOS - C
43.8
41.4
47.5
51.8
HASOC19 - A
77.6
74.5
78.1
76.7
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison of model types. We can observe that Qwen3 family models ( Qwen3 and HIPPO ) perform better and more stable in comparison to other same-sized models from other families.
Figure 6: Confusion matrices for all classification-based tasks in the test set. Predicted label categories correspond to the true label categories, abbreviated for brevity.
Figure 7: Difference of confusion matrices between the unified model and individual models. Blue indicates better performance for unified, red vice versa.
We study whether large-scale unlabelled web data and LLM-based synthetic annotations can improve multilingual hate speech detection. Starting from texts crawled via OpenWebSearch.eu~(OWS) in four languages (English, German, Spanish, Vietnamese), we pursue two complementary strategies. First, we apply continued pre-training to BERT models by continuing masked language modelling on unlabelled OWS texts before supervised fine-tuning, and show that this yields an average macro-F1 gain of approximately 3% over standard baselines across sixteen benchmarks, with stronger gains in low-resource settings. Second, we use four open-source LLMs (Mistral-7B, Llama3.1-8B, Gemma2-9B, Qwen2.5-14B) to produce synthetic annotations through three ensemble strategies: mean averaging, majority voting, and a LightGBM meta-learner. The LightGBM ensemble consistently outperforms the other strategies. Fine-tuning on these synthetic labels substantially benefits a small model (Llama3.2-1B: +11% pooled F1), but provides only a modest gain for the larger Qwen2.5-14B (+0.6%). Our results indicate that the combination of web-scale unlabelled data and LLM-ensemble annotations is the most valuable for smaller models and low-resource languages.
It is challenging to detect hate speech in Low Resource Languages (LRLs) because of the absence of annotated data, the informality of its language structure, and the lack of standardized grammar. A good example of such a challenge is Roman Urdu which is broadly used by South Asians on social media and has a high variation while lacking contextually consistent spellings. The objective of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) for Hate Speech Detection (HSD) in Roman Urdu script and fine-tune these models using the Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) method called Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). To evaluate zero-shot inference, we benchmarked it against PEFT on different transformer models, including Mistral, LLaMA, Falcon, and multilingual BERT. Experiments are conducted on the PURUTT (Parallel Urdu and Roman Urdu Corpus for Toxic Comments and Transliteration) dataset with over 72,000 annotated comments. The results suggest that zero shot models perform moderately (F1 = 0.56), but updating a small fraction of the model trainable parameters improves the classification performance significantly (F1 > 0.93). Our results have shown that PEFT delivers outstanding performance alongside excellent computational efficiency, making it highly suitable for low-resource language processing tasks.
Toneema Zubair, Muhammad Junaid Asif, Faisal Kamiran +2
Department of Computer Sciences Information Technology University Lahore (54000), Pakistan · Artificial Intelligence Technology Centre National Centre for Physics Islamabad (44000), Pakistan
The scale of online content makes hate-speech moderation challenging, while Large Language Models (LLMs) enable harmful material to be produced and adapted more easily. Moderation therefore requires efficient classifiers that can accommodate different definitions of hate speech. Recent structured decision models accept natural-language criteria and select among specified answers, raising the question of whether they can meet these requirements without task-specific training. We present HATEDECIDE, an evaluation of six decision-model configurations on four hate-speech datasets against specialized moderation, zero-shot, commercial, and supervised baselines. We examine whether supplying a dataset's definition, or decomposing it into multiple questions, improves classification, and we measure their latency and cost. We find that commercial LLMs significantly outperform all decision models on only one dataset. Supplying definitions changes up to 28% of predictions without consistently improving classification, and decomposition significantly improves performance in only 20% of the comparisons. On a diagnostic set of test cases, the best hosted decision model comes within 1.6 macro-F1 points of the best commercial LLM at approximately 97% lower inference cost. These results identify opportunities for inexpensive moderation, while showing that explicit criteria and additional questions do not reliably improve classification.
Demetris Paschalides, George Pallis, Marios D. Dikaiakos
University of Cyprus, Computer Science Department, Nicosia, Cyprus