Hate Speech

In this paper, we examine speech datasets for their inclusion of LGBTQIA+, or queer, voices and provide a taxonomy of tensions to better understand why there is a lack of such voices in current speech technology datasets. Through an audit of six diverse speech datasets, we find that measurable queer representation is low (0-1.4% of speakers) - insufficient for robust disparity measurement. We take this community as a case study to consider what challenges and tensions are associated with collecting speech data from marginalized communities. For comparison, we audit an additional two datasets from the speech sciences that were created by, for, and with the queer community. We note that many customs in speech dataset collection efforts in AI and speech technology research may conflict with values emphasized in participatory approaches with marginalized communities, and provide a taxonomy describing these tensions.

Hateful memes spread abusive content through implicit interactions between images and text, posing serious threats to the safety of online communities. In recent years, multimodal large language models have been widely used for hateful meme detection and are increasingly adopted to generate explainable detection results. However, we find that existing explain-then-detect methods often couple explanation generation and label prediction within the same training process. This coupling causes interference between task objectives, leading to limited detection performance and even worse results than simple SFT baselines. To address these challenges, we propose ProKDA, a progressive knowledge-to-decision alignment method for explainable hateful meme detection. Inspired by the human annotation training process, ProKDA first uses an agentic background knowledge construction pipeline to obtain external knowledge related to meme understanding. It then adopts a three-stage training strategy that sequentially performs background knowledge learning, hatefulness detection learning, and hatefulness boundary alignment. Unlike prior explain-then-detect methods that jointly optimize both tasks, ProKDA focuses on a single training objective at each stage. This design reduces interference between the two tasks and progressively transforms background knowledge into robust detection decisions. Experiments on three public hateful meme benchmarks show that ProKDA achieves state-of-the-art detection performance and provides accurate, explainable, and evidence-supported decisions for hateful meme moderation. Project page: https://meizhiyuan88666.github.io/prokda.

When a large vision-language model misclassifies a harmful meme, the failure may reflect missing internal evidence or an inability to route represented evidence to its output. We distinguish these cases in Gemma-3 and Qwen3.5 using sparse autoencoders, role-conditioned probes, causal interventions, and recovery experiments across six harmful content benchmarks, with additional Spanish and Hindi-English code-mixed evaluations. Sparse readouts outperform native prediction on all six primary binary tasks: Qwen averages $0.740$ versus $0.432$ native macro-F1, while residual reconstruction reaches $0.486$, whereas Gemma improves from $0.532$ to $0.714$. These differences reflect supervised accessibility rather than a pre-existing, native decision rule, and the most influential token role depends on the task. Under the evaluated score scales, Qwen silent-feature ablation is $24-63$ times more probe-sensitive, whereas routed-feature patching on literal yes/no tasks is $16-140$ times more output-sensitive. Calibration-only routing recovers $93.3$% of the mean gap, and probe-distilled LoRA improves native predictions, although shared multi-task adaptation causes negative transfer. A case study of Gemma-3-12B on Facebook Hateful Memes finds a distributed rank-32 image-prompt interaction, reaching $0.756$ versus $0.685$ native macro-F1. Robustness controls show that the signal extends beyond English, is not explained solely by accompanying OCR, and depends on paired visual evidence. Thus, routing, rather than representation alone, is a recurring bottleneck in harmful meme classification.

Counterspeech (CS) - direct responses that counter online Hate Speech (HS) using reasoning and alternative viewpoints - has emerged as an alternative to content removal. Current automatic CS generation methods, however, frequently produce generic, ineffective replies that fail to target the implicit stereotypes behind HS. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel scope-conditioned generation framework that explicitly integrates structured stereotype characteristics into Large Language Models prompts. We validate our approach on a novel, human-curated dataset annotated in English, Italian, and Spanish. Extensive evaluations show that stereotype-conditioned prompting substantially outperforms generic baselines across all three languages, obtaining significant gains in factuality, specificity, cogency, and effectiveness for both explicit and implicit implied stereotypes.

We introduce ParsHate, a manually annotated dataset of 10,000 Persian tweets spanning 2013-2022, representing the first decade-long benchmark for hate speech detection in Persian. The dataset contains 31% hateful content and supports both hate detection and multi-label fine-grained target identification across seven structured target categories. ParsHate also distinguishes explicit and implicit hate, marks explicit and implicit targets, and provides span-level rationales. Data collection combines random and score-stratified temporal sampling to reduce keyword-driven bias while preserving natural label distributions. Applying SOTA models for Persian hate-speech detection on ParsHate shows moderate performance (79% F1), especially with samples from earlier years, and low performance with target identification (25.5% macro-F1). This emphasizes the diverse sampling of hate speech in ParsHate and its challenging nature that requires more advanced methods for better performance. Dataset is made publicly available.

Russian state propaganda spreads across many languages and online spaces. Yet, most computational work examines only one such space, usually social media, in one or two languages, and analyses sources rather than content. We introduce SWARM (Search-Web documents Annotated for Russian propaganda, Multilingual), a dataset of 2,183 search engine results across nine languages and diverse web domains (e.g., news, blogs, government sites), each annotated by trained coders for whether it supports a recurring Russian propaganda narrative. We benchmark a source-based blocklist, supervised classifiers, and zero-shot LLMs against these labels. The blocklist misses most propaganda-supporting documents, because such content is not confined to flagged "propaganda" outlets but also appears on mainstream ones. Content-level analysis helps, though how much depends on the model: the strongest LLM reaches a positive-class F1 of 0.73, whereas the supervised classifiers reach only about 0.5, with the smaller LLMs over-predicting support, mistaking topical relevance for endorsement. Detecting search-borne propaganda thus requires per-language, content-level evaluation, which we hope SWARM and our evaluation code enable.

With hate speech being ubiquitous online, automatic detection is crucial, in particular when it comes to criminally relevant social media posts. We study a variety of retrieval-based in-context learning (RetICL) strategies for detecting defamatory offences under §§ 185-187 StGB (the subject of GermEval 2026 Subtask 4). Few-shot prompting beats zero-shot, but retrieval-based approaches offer only marginal gains over random demonstrations, and even fall behind an optimised static set of demonstrations. Providing concrete legal knowledge helps, yet model choice outweighs every other system choice. Models over-predict criminal relevance while still missing 26-57% of criminally relevant posts, suiting them for triage rather than autonomous moderation.

Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as information intermediaries, yet measuring their political behavior remains fragile because questionnaire results mix model dispositions with measurement artifacts and response-elicitation biases. We introduce a robust Political Compass Test evaluation framework that samples 300 configurations across an eight-dimensional perturbation space varying language, framing, instructions, answer format, option order, and persona wording. We evaluate eight Gemma 3 and Qwen 3 models across 14 languages and three quantization levels, obtaining design-averaged political coordinates with quantified uncertainty. Most models lean Libertarian-Left on average, but instruction phrasing, language, and answer format significantly affect recovered coordinates. Cross-lingual differences primarily reflect coordinate drift rather than distinct cultural reasoning. Reverse-engineering the test also exposes axis-weighting imbalances and the collapse of degenerate responses toward the center, so near-origin estimates for the smallest models can reflect weak signal rather than centrism. Free-text reasoning and chat-then-classify elicitation alter recovered coordinates, and larger models show clearer persona separation, with a specific failure of the Authoritarian-Left persona to move most models in the intended social direction. In downstream tasks, persona effects are modest relative to model size and target group for hate-speech detection, while base and centrist prompts give the highest agreement for topic-level sentiment. Political role prompting therefore has measurable but task- and dataset-specific downstream effects.

Moral language plays a central role in shaping online endorsement and the diffusion of information, yet existing moral foundation detection systems often suffer from poor cross-domain generalization, weak rationale grounding, and reliance on costly prompting-based large language models (LLMs). We introduce CHARM, a MAC- and Hate-speech-Aware Rationalealigned Moral foundation detection framework built on a lightweight fine-tuned LLM, which integrates complementary moral grounding, rationale alignment, and polarity-aware hate speech signals to support more robust and faithful moral prediction. Unlike prior dictionary-, fine-tune-, or prompt-based detectors, which decouple computation from psychological theory, CHARM is built so that each component -- MAC cross-attention, rationale alignment, and hate-speech modulation -- operationalizes a distinct psychological construct. Using a 30% subsample of the MFTC, MFRC, and News training pools together with the richer supervision in MFTCXplain, CHARM improves AUC by up to 15.3% in-domain, surpasses the supervised baselines on every out-of-domain dataset in both AUC and F1, and offers a scalable, low-cost alternative to prompting-based LLM detectors. We further apply CHARM to large-scale COVID-19 discourse on Twitter and show that moral value alignment is strongly associated with online endorsement behavior. By making moral framing measurable at scale, CHARM offers a practical tool for studying the spread of morally charged misinformation. Code and additional materials: https://github.com/HuixiangF/CHARM/.

While gender and racial biases in language models have been widely studied, anti-LGBTQ biases remain underexplored, particularly beyond English. Existing benchmarks often do not capture cultural and linguistic variation and rely on gender representations. This paper introduces a multilingual German-English benchmark dataset for the evaluation of anti-LGBTQ biases in language models. It combines community-sourced stereotypes from German-speaking queer individuals with a German translation of WinoQueer. The data is used to evaluate eight language models across sizes and architectures and explore mitigation through fine-tuning on community and progressive media content. Results show that language models reproduce anti-queer stereotypes, with variation across identities and models. Differences between the translated and community-based data highlight the importance of cultural adaptation for multilingual bias evaluation. Fine-tuning reduces bias on average, but not consistently across models and identities. Warning: This text contains examples of anti-queer hateful language and stereotypes.

Public procurement involves the allocation of substantial financial resources; therefore, continuous oversight through audits, controls, and monitoring mechanisms is essential. However, stakeholder comments and publicly available government data are often underutilized, despite their potential to reveal procedural irregularities. To address this gap, this paper analyzes metadata from Ecuador's Sistema Oficial de Contratación Pública (SOCE, Official Public Procurement System), with particular emphasis on participant comments generated during the pre-contractual phase. We propose a hybrid modeling framework that integrates unsupervised clustering and supervised classification within a natural language processing (NLP) pipeline to uncover latent patterns and detect potentially irregular procurement processes. Semantic embeddings are generated using Word2Vec, LLaMA, and RoBERTa, followed by Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) for unsupervised clustering. A supervised classification stage is then applied to identify accusatory or whistleblowing-style comments. Experimental results show that the combination of domain-trained Word2Vec embeddings, GMM-based clustering, and a Random Forest classifier achieves high precision and recall, even under severe class imbalance. These findings demonstrate that lightweight, domain-adapted NLP architectures can effectively support risk identification and enhance transparency in public procurement systems without requiring large-scale computational infrastructure.

Picture books and comics have long been used to disseminate hateful narratives because they are easily understood even by children, as exemplified by the notorious Nazi propaganda picture book \emph{Der Giftpilz}. Recently, frontier text-to-image (T2I) systems such as Gemini and GPT-Image have enabled conversational generation with consistent characters and scenes across turns, making hateful visual stories, namely ordered image groups that collectively convey hateful narratives, cheap and scalable to produce. Although prior work has studied hateful content generation by T2I systems, it focuses on individual images, leaving group-level hateful meaning largely unexplored. We aim to address the gap. Concretely, we introduce \texttt{HatefulStoryPrompts}, comprising 330 multi-turn configurations from 55 hateful stories across two languages and three visual styles, and evaluate five frontier models over 4,950 attempts. Every model completes over 80% of the stories, with the strongest reaching 99.0%. We further evaluate existing moderation systems on \texttt{HatefulVisualStory}, a human-labeled dataset of 969 hateful image sets and 990 benign controls, and find that they frequently miss group-level hateful meaning: dedicated safety models achieve at most 34.9% recall, while a strong vision-language model reaches 67.5%. Finally, we propose complementary proactive and post-generation defenses. An interaction-aware monitor achieves 97.3% recall for prompt-only sessions and 92.6% when the user supplies the first image, while post-generation methods jointly analyzing completed image groups reach 80.2%. Our work shows that, as image generation evolves from isolated outputs to coherent visual narratives, safety must evolve accordingly, from per-image moderation to stateful reasoning over interactions and image relationships.

We present ArabicDialectSafety, a human-curated Arabic safety dataset of 25,071 prompts covering six Arabic varieties: Modern Standard Arabic, Syrian, Egyptian, Algerian, Palestinian, and Moroccan. The dataset is annotated with dialect labels and seven fine-grained harm categories. We introduce a dual-task evaluation framework for binary safe/unsafe detection and granular harm classification across dialects. Benchmarking seven supervised and generative models, we find that fine-tuned MARBERTv2 achieves the strongest performance, with Macro-F1 scores of 0.95 for binary classification and 0.90 for granular classification, substantially outperforming prompted frontier LLMs, including Arabic-specialized models. Our analyses show that dialect conditioning is most effective when integrated at the representation level, while significant performance gaps remain for low-resource Maghrebi dialects. We further evaluate seven frontier LLMs as response generators on harmful dialectal Arabic prompts and observe unsafe generation rates below 5 percent across models. We release the dataset and code upon acceptance to support future research on dialect-aware Arabic safety evaluation. Warning: This paper contains examples of harmful and potentially offensive content included solely for research purposes.

Early detection of mental health disorders is often limited by the lack of specialized resources in Spanish and the difficulty of analyzing long histories of social media posts. This paper addresses these challenges through three main contributions. First, we introduce three Spanish foundational models specifically adapted to the mental health domain through domain-specific pre-training. Second, we propose Incremental Context Expansion (ICE), an automatic relabeling methodology designed for early detection. ICE identifies the point at which cumulative messages provide enough evidence of a disorder, generating more informative training samples. Third, we provide a set of fine-tuned models using the samples generated with the ICE methodology for early risk detection tasks. Our results on three Spanish benchmarks show that combining these specialized models with ICE improves the state-of-the-art, reducing detection latency while maintaining high performance. All models are publicly available.

Hateful memes are a growing form of multimodal online harm, where hostile intent is often conveyed through the joint interpretation of images, text, cultural references, and implicit targets. While hateful meme detection has advanced in high-resource languages, Arabic remains underexplored, with existing meme resources focusing mainly on propaganda or coarse harmful-content labels. We introduce AHA-Memes (Arabic HAteful Memes), which is, to our knowledge, the first large-scale Arabic hateful meme benchmark with fine-grained, multi-label annotations. The dataset includes 5K manually annotated memes using a taxonomy that captures hate types, i.e., attack strategies. We further provide ~66K silver-labeled memes to support future studies. We benchmark text-only, image-only, and late-fusion multimodal models, as well as few-shot in-context learning (ICL) and open- and closed-weight Vision-Language Models (VLMs) under zero-shot and fine-tuning settings. Our results establish strong baselines and highlight key challenges in culturally grounded Arabic hateful meme detection. We release the dataset, annotation guidelines, and evaluation scripts to support future research. WARNING: This paper contains examples that may be disturbing to readers.

Offensive language detection models generally suffer performance degradation when deployed across datasets and across languages, yet most existing studies stop at reporting this phenomenon and lack a systematic methodology for decomposing the causes of degradation into attributable components and quantifying the cost of remediation. This paper proposes a diagnosis and optimization framework composed of three coordinated technical components. First, a zero-shot transfer loss decomposition that separates the performance degradation from OLID to MLMA into two independently measurable components, namely dataset effect and language effect. Second, a controlled fine-tuning protocol that quantifies both adaptation efficiency and the hidden damage inflicted on the source task by comparing few shot learning curves under continued fine-tuning and cold-start starting points. Third, three joint training strategies incorpo rating temperature sampling and experience replay, which offer a controllable Pareto trade-off between improving multilingual capability and preserving source-task performance. Experiments built on this framework show that the dataset effect dominates the zero-shot transfer loss and substantially outweighs the language effect. Few-shot adaptation without a replay mechanism, though data-efficient, inflicts source task damage 4 to 9 times greater than that of the joint training strategies, and its damage magnitude is highly unstable. The three joint training strategies trade 3.2 to 4.1 percentage points of source-task performance for 8.1 to 42.6 percentage points of multilingual capability gain, forming a clear and controllable Pareto trade-off.

MEMEs are widely used on the internet and often carry strong elements of sarcasm or irony. Understanding their hidden meanings typically requires a joint interpretation of text and vision. Existing methods focus on the dual-stream vision-language model to extract the visual and text simultaneously, which lacks background information and prior knowledge about the comprehensive explanation of MEME. One feasible option is to adopt chain-of-thought (CoT). However, the simple CoT approach lacks multi-perspective thinking, which may compromise the reliability of the resulting answers. Moreover, it often relies on shallow feature fusion, lacking the fusion of local details and fine-grained visual-prompt text alignment. This limitation prevents a deeper understanding of the intricate connections between the visual and the text. Herein, an enhanced vision-language multi-CoT (EVL-MCoT) approach is proposed to address these limitations. By promoting multi-CoT, EVL-MCoT enhances consistency and reduces bias in the decision-making process. Additionally, we design a prototype-guided and context-guided decoding framework, which incorporates visual prototypes to guide the fusion process and enables the model to align textual and visual information more precisely. We achieve promising results on the HatefulMemes and MultiOff datasets. The source code has been publicly released and is available at https://github.com/BGWH123/EVL-MCoT.

Hateful optical illusions expose a serious gap in current multimodal safety systems. On original-view hateful illusions, previous work shows that six moderation classifiers achieve at most 20.9 to 24.5% accuracy and nine state-of-the-art VLMs remain at or below 10.2% with illusion-aware prompting, leaving most hidden hate undetected. We formulate hidden hateful illusion detection as a perceptual retrieval problem and propose Adaptive View Retrieval. This retrieve-and-calibrate framework assembles a complementary view bank for the image and hidden-message templates, adaptively selects which views to trust, retrieves hidden-message identities, and calibrates whether the recovered evidence is harmful. On HatefulIllusion with a frozen CLIP encoder, Adaptive View Retrieval reaches 93.2% balanced accuracy on the held-out test split. It substantially outperforms original-view baselines and fixed single-transform filters across hate slangs, hate symbols, and visibility levels. The same design also surpasses official fine-tuned CLIP baselines, matches or exceeds human performance on IllusionMNIST, IllusionFashionMNIST, and IllusionAnimals, and outperforms zoom-out preprocessing on HC-Bench under the SemVink protocol. Together, these results show that robust multimodal moderation requires recovering hidden meaning before deciding whether it is harmful.

Fine-grained offensive language detection organizes labels into a hierarchical structure, for which two modeling paradigms exist: cascaded decomposition and joint multi-task modeling. Prior work rarely provides a direct, controlled comparison of the two paradigms in terms of accuracy, parameter count, and inference latency, and rarely verifies whether a chosen class-imbalance handling strategy is actually optimal. This paper proposes a three-level cascaded detection system whose training strategy is customized per subtask, together with two verification mechanisms. First, a controlled ablation study determines the best class-imbalance handling strategy for each subtask. Second, a joint multi-task model with a shared encoder is trained as an architectural control, yielding real measurements along the dimensions of accuracy, parameter count, and inference latency. Experiments show that the cascaded system attains macro-F1 scores of 0.795, 0.716, and 0.557 on the three subtasks of the official test set. The ablation study reveals that configuring the loss function purely by imbalance-severity intuition is suboptimal; reconfiguring based on the ablation results improves both performance and stability. End-to-end cascade evaluation shows that roughly one-fifth of the errors in the cascade pipeline originate from the first-stage filter and cannot be corrected by subsequent stages. Relative to the joint multi-task model, the cascaded architecture achieves higher accuracy on all three subtasks, with a 7.1-point macro-F1 gain on the most severely imbalanced subtask, at the cost of three times the parameters and 1.67 times the inference latency. Together, these results establish an explicit, quantifiable trade-off between the accuracy advantage of cascaded architectures and their deployment cost.

Moderation systems increasingly rely on external toxicity tools, but those tools are unreliable under code-mixing, transliteration, slang, and language mismatch. We study the \emph{conditional reliability} of toxicity priors in Indian multilingual and code-mixed short text: English toxicity, Indic abuse, and rule-based severity cues can be useful evidence, but only in some linguistic and abuse-severity contexts. We propose ToxGate, a trust-fusion head that conditions each auxiliary signal on the encoder representation before adding it to the prediction state. Across three short-text abuse datasets, four transformer encoders, and five seeds per setting, ToxGate improves over matched plain encoders in 10 of 12 in-domain settings and 7 of 8 transfer settings. The largest and most interpretable gains occur in high-risk moderation slices, including explicit slurs, violent threats, and cross-dataset transfer. The broader lesson is that moderation systems should treat external toxicity tools and priors as conditional evidence rather than fixed features or ground truth, in focused ablations, source-specific gating gives the strongest results in transfer, severe-abuse slices, and high-risk triage.

LLMs now sit on every side of evaluation: as examinees scored on benchmarks, judges of other models' outputs, and raters of human-generated content. Each paradigm can be viewed as a measurement problem, where a latent property of an object is probed with items from an instrument (e.g., benchmark) by judges or raters. Standard evaluation practices often neglect the contributions of each core component to the end result, limiting our understanding of what is being measured. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) is well-suited to this problem. RMT decomposes ordinal ratings into separable facets on a common scale. It further provides a battery of diagnostics that can identify miscalibrated measurements and rater biases. We present a case study of RMT applied to the LLM-as-rater paradigm using the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, whose construct was itself built under RMT. We fit a series of many-facet Rasch models to annotations from nine LLMs spanning families and capability levels. Our analyses show that LLMs systematically differ from human raters in severity, item-level calibration, question-order robustness, target-identity sensitivity, and rating scale use, all of which standard evaluation practice would largely obscure. Overall, we argue that RMT belongs in the toolkit for evaluating LLM-as-examinee, -judge, and -rater paradigms.

The spread of hate speech (HS) across different social media platforms (SMPs) poses a major concern for online safety and ethical moderation. Automatic detection of HS remains a challenging task, especially in under-resourced languages like Bangla, due to cultural context, implicit expressions, and informal linguistic patterns. This study aimed to expose the crisis of Bangla HS detection systems by diagnosing how and why benchmark-trained models fail to identify implicit, context-dependent HS. Six architectures (FastText + CNN, FastText + LSTM, FastText + BiLSTM, BanglaBERT, BanglaBERT + CNN, and BanglaBERT + BiLSTM) were trained on benchmark datasets (about 75,000 posts) and a merged multi-source dataset (about 120,000 posts), then externally validated on an annotated dataset (about 200 posts) collected from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, labeled as HS and non-HS, where HS was further categorized as explicit and implicit. BanglaBERT achieved an F1-score of 91.4% on benchmark datasets but declined to 75.3% on the external set and 63.4% for implicit HS involving sarcasm and emojis. The accuracy of FastText + CNN dropped from 78.0% to 51.2% under similar conditions. Emoji-aware preprocessing improved implicit HS detection by up to 12%, whereas emoji removal caused a notable decline in performance (F1: 0.75 to 0.63). Frequent misclassifications in politically charged or satirical comments revealed over-policing risks. This study not only exposes the generalization crisis due to implicit, culturally embedded, and emoji-laden expressions but also underscores the need for developing adaptive, emoji-aware, and culturally grounded frameworks that ensure ethical moderation while preserving freedom of expression. Findings of this study provide insights for researchers, SMPs, and policymakers to design more context-sensitive HS detection systems for low-resource languages.

The widespread adoption of social media platforms has transformed online communication by enabling users to exchange information and opinions instantly. However, these platforms have also facilitated the dissemination of abusive and hateful content, posing major social, psychological, and ethical challenges. Hate speech can incite discrimination, harassment, and violence against individuals or communities based on attributes such as ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, or political affiliation. Consequently, automatic hate speech detection has become a major research topic in natural language processing (NLP) and an essential component of content moderation systems. This paper investigates automatic hate speech detection in the Algerian Arabic dialect (Darija) on social media. This task remains challenging because of the dialect's linguistic diversity, characterized by the coexistence of Arabic, French, and Arabizi (Arabic written using the Latin alphabet). We compare four categories of text classification approaches: (1) traditional machine learning models using TF-IDF features, (2) deep learning models based on recurrent neural networks, (3) Transformer-based language models, including DziriBERT and multilingual BERT, and (4) a novel hybrid architecture, FAD-SA-GRU, which combines semantic representations from DZ FastText, DZ AraVec, and DziriBERT through multi-embedding fusion, followed by a self-attention-enhanced GRU encoder. Experiments on an annotated dataset of Algerian Darija social media comments for binary hate speech classification show that FAD-SA-GRU outperforms all baselines, achieving 93.2% accuracy, 93.4% precision, 91.0% recall, 92.1% F1-score, and 97.0% ROC-AUC. Results demonstrate the effectiveness of combining complementary embedding representations with attention-based sequence modeling for robust hate speech detection in low-resource dialectal Arabic.

The rapid proliferation of online polarization threatens social cohesion, necessitating robust automated detection systems that operate effectively across diverse linguistic contexts. This paper presents our system description for the POLAR Shared Task 2026, focusing on the detection and characterization of polarized discourse in English and Hausa. We propose a hybrid modeling strategy: for English binary detection, we leverage the monolingual strength of \textbf{DeBERTa}, while for Hausa and all fine-grained subtasks (Types and Manifestations), we utilize \textbf{AfroXLMR-Social}. This domain-adapted multilingual model proved critical for capturing the nuances of polarization in social media text. To further address computational constraints and data scarcity, we implement Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) and textual data augmentation via \texttt{nlpaug}. We report competitive results across all three subtasks, demonstrating that model selection tailored to specific subtask requirements yields the best balance of performance.

LLMs enable the integration of external conceptual resources at inference time, creating new opportunities for detecting ideologically and historically complex phenomena such as antisemitism. We investigate how different forms of conceptual grounding affect antisemitism detection and explanation behavior across four state-of-the-art LLMs. Using two expert-annotated datasets, we compare definitional, fine-grained taxonomic, example-augmented, and large-context representations of antisemitism. We find that fine-grained taxonomic representations substantially improve recall, while simultaneously reducing precision. Surprisingly, supplying substantially larger conceptual resources yields no additional quantitative benefit. Post-Holocaust antisemitism poses the most persistent challenge across models and configurations. Analysis of explanations further reveals systematic limitations including overproduction of conceptual references, reliance on lexical cues, overconfidence, and difficulties with subtle or justificatory forms of antisemitism. Our findings highlight both the potential and the remaining limitations of conceptually grounded LLMs for antisemitism detection and reasoning.

Addressing hate and violence in society requires timely detection of hateful events from public reporting, but automated identification of hateful events remains underexplored. We introduce the task of hateful event detection and investigate the ability of AI systems, specifically large language models (LLMs), to discover and classify reports of antisemitic events with fine-grained labels. We evaluate OpenAI's GPT-4o and Meta's Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct on multiple expert-annotated datasets containing antisemitic event descriptions from news articles, civil society reports, and official records. We show that LLMs, particularly GPT-4o, have potential for this task, but substantial improvement is needed. Providing clear term definitions and in-context examples in prompts can improve performance: definitions are most helpful for rhetoric-oriented events (e.g. classical antisemitic tropes), while examples help label action-oriented events (e.g. physical assault). A case study of college newspapers demonstrates that LLMs can help surface relevant real-world events, supporting early monitoring and intervention. Overall, our findings highlight both opportunities and critical gaps in AI's ability to recognize complex harms and underscore the need for collaborative efforts among AI developers, policymakers, and civil society to design models, implement robust evaluation, and develop policy frameworks for defining and combating hate efficiently and effectively.

Online hate speech has been linked to a global rise in violence against minorities, including incidents such as mass shootings, lynchings, and ethnic cleansing. Societies grappling with this issue, particularly when hate speech targets specific groups based on religion, race, ethnicity, culture, nationality, or migration status, face the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with the need for effective content moderation on widely used online platforms. In response to this challenge, we introduce a comprehensive hate speech dataset covering five distinct topics in Turkish: refugees, the Israel-Palestine conflict, anti-Greek sentiment in Turkey, ethnic or religious communities (Alevis, Armenians, Arabs, Jews, and Kurds), and LGBTI+, alongside one topic in Arabic (refugees). In addition, we develop state-of-the-art BERT-based models to address multiple dimensions of hate speech analysis, including hate category classification, hate intensity prediction, target identification, and hate speech span detection, enabling a comprehensive understanding of hateful content in online discourse.

Hate speech annotation pipelines routinely collapse annotator disagreement into majority vote labels before training. We show that this aggregation is not neutral: 42.6% of all annotator disagreement in HateXplain concentrates specifically at the hate/offensive boundary, a pattern consistent with annotators applying different thresholds for where hate begins (chi-squared = 135.199, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Both a hard-label BERT model (Model A) and a soft-label model (Model B) drop 22 percentage points in accuracy from agreed posts (~80%) to disagreement posts (~58%), confirmed at p < 0.0001. A per-annotator multi-head model (Model C) widens this gap further to 28 points while collapsing offensive disagreement accuracy to 0.245. Critically, Model A expresses significantly higher confidence on boundary case errors than Model C (0.710 vs. 0.495, p < 0.0001), meaning standard evaluation metrics will not detect the failure. Three downstream interventions of increasing sophistication all fail to recover boundary accuracy. We argue the problem is structural. Majority vote presents a contested judgment as ground truth, and models inherit that false certainty. The intervention must be upstream in annotation design.

Cross-platform deployment of offensive comment detection for Chinese social media suffers performance degradation. The paper proposes a dual-threshold hard mining method to address this. First, the clean-Chinese-base RoBERTa is finetuned on COLD to establish a binary baseline for fair comparison. Second, a three-class fine-labeled test set covering Weibo, Xiaohongshu, Tieba, and Zhihu is constructed, domain distances from the source are quantified using Jaccard and Proxy-A Distance, as well as the degradation bottleneck of the baseline under domain shift is systematically revealed. Herein, a dual threshold hard example mining strategy is proposed. High- and low-confidence error-prone samples are filtered from unlabeled corpora by prediction confidence. The model is secondarily finetuned under implicit contexts with merely a small set of manually labeled hard examples, realizing low-cost cross-platform domain adaptation. Experiments reveal significant performance gains of the optimized model across four platforms.

Online hate speech and misinformation frequently overlap, yet NLP research has mainly treated them in isolation. While LLMs represent a scalable solution for assisting humans in the generation of counterspeech for both threats, zero-shot models frequently generate repetitive and vague responses, underscoring the need for high-quality examples to steer model generation. However, existing counterspeech datasets against the overlap of hate and misinformation are scarce and limited to single-turn English dialogues, while real-life interactions span across multiple turns and languages. To bridge this gap, we introduce the first large-scale, expert-curated, multilingual dataset of dialogues tackling the intersection of hate and misinformation. To ensure factual grounding, the dialogues are also anchored in verified external knowledge (i.e., fact-checking articles and NGO reports) and include document- and chunk-level span annotations, making it directly applicable for RAG systems. Covering five languages and targeting hate directed at seven marginalized groups, this novel resource enables the training and evaluation of more persuasive, factually grounded counterspeech models.

Classifying implicit hate speech remains a challenge, as intent is often masked through insinuation and context rather than explicit slurs. Prior supervised contrastive approaches improve in-domain detection but can overfit surface cues and struggle to transfer across datasets. We propose ImpSH, a triplet-based framework that aligns posts with implied statements when available and uses context-bounded semi-hard negatives to focus learning on near confusions. We also examine AugSH, which forms positives via data augmentation. In controlled evaluations on IHC, SBIC, and DynaHate with BERT and HateBERT, ImpSH is a viable alternative to standard supervised contrastive baselines and often improves cross-domain performance under matched preprocessing and tuning budgets. Representation analysis using alignment and uniformity indicates tighter positive pairs with balanced global spread, and qualitative nearest-neighbor case studies illustrate typical false negatives under domain shift. These results demonstrate that aligning posts with their implied statements via context-bounded mining provides a more stable, bijective-like mapping to related insinuations, overcoming the volatility inherent in traditional clustering-based representation learning.

The rapid growth of social media has intensified the spread of rumours. This issue is more challenging in the Algerian context due to the informal and code-switched nature of dialectal content, the scarcity of annotated resources, and the limited effectiveness of standard Arabic NLP tools on dialect text. This paper presents an end-to-end rumour detection hybrid framework for Algerian dialect social media content. We build a domain-specific annotated dataset by combining real social media posts, synthetic data, and the FASSILA corpus, with automatic labeling based on a similarity-based annotation process. A transliteration pipeline is also introduced to generate parallel datasets in Arabic script and Arabizi. We evaluate multiple approaches, including classical machine learning, deep learning, transformers, and hybrid models. Experimental results show that a hybrid approach combining transformer embeddings with a classical classifier achieves the best performance, reaching an F1-score of 0.84. We also find that domain-specific pre-training is more important than model size, with social media-trained models outperforming larger models trained on formal Arabic corpora. These results demonstrate the feasibility of rumour detection in low-resource Algerian dialect settings.

Hateful videos have become prevalent on online platforms, highlighting an urgent need for effective detection. However, existing studies primarily focus on binary classification and fail to provide contextual rationales that reveal the implicit meanings behind these judgments, significantly undermining model explainability. To fill this gap, we aim to achieve explainable hateful video detection, enabling models to provide contextual rationales that integrate relevant evidence and logical reasoning alongside decisions. This approach can comprehensively enhance the understanding of video content and the explainability of the decision-making process. We first introduce two datasets, Ex-HateMM and Ex-ImpliHateVid, for explainable hateful video detection. Each dataset provides fine-grained annotations of multimodal harmful elements, along with contextual rationales. We then propose an Information Augmentation and Reasoning Enhancement (IARE) framework designed for explainable detection. The framework employs an information augmentation phase that leverages the multimodal chain-of-thought to integrate harmful elements, thereby enriching rationale evidence. Additionally, IARE incorporates a reasoning enhancement phase, in which Direct Preference Optimization guides the model toward correct reasoning paths and away from incorrect ones, thereby improving the logical coherence of its justifications. We conduct extensive experiments on the two datasets, comparing multiple baselines with our proposed IARE framework. The results demonstrate that IARE achieves state-of-the-art performance while also generating accurate rationales.

Chinese discriminatory-language detection is challenging because harmful intent is often implicit and context-dependent. We propose MAAM (Myopia--Astigmatism Anchor Mechanism), a lightweight, model-agnostic framework inspired by functional visual blur: rather than preserving every token equally, MAAM retains discrimination-relevant semantic anchors and calibrates them with C--I--S contextual priors (Contextual Tone, Group Identity, and Stance Polarity). We also introduce ChLGBT, to our knowledge the first Chinese LGBT-focused discriminatory-language dataset, with 8,120 manually annotated samples and three ordinal labels: explicit bias, implicit bias, and emotional intensity. Across strong encoder baselines, MAAM improves all three prediction dimensions, with consistent gains in accuracy, F1, Brier score, and expected calibration error. Compared with frontier LLM baselines under zero-shot and few-shot prompting protocols, MAAM remains competitive while offering stronger compactness and stability. These results suggest that interpretable anchor preservation and contextual calibration provide a practical alternative to heavier model scaling for Chinese discriminatory-language assessment.

The analysis of internet memes in the Nepali language is complicated by frequent code-mixing and a lack of established baseline resources. While memes inherently combine visual and textual elements, this study focuses on a text-centric approach by extracting embedded text using an OCR layer and modeling it with Transformer-based architectures. We evaluate six distinct models and investigate the comparative effectiveness of Hard and Soft Voting ensemble strategies across two tasks: binary hate speech detection and three-class sentiment analysis. Experimental results show that a standalone decoder-only model achieved the highest performance for binary classification, whereas the Soft Voting ensemble performed best for the multi-class sentiment task, yielding a 15.8% relative improvement in Macro F1-score over the strongest standalone baseline. These findings suggest that ensemble strategies behave differently across binary and multi-class tasks, highlighting the importance of selecting aggregation methods suited to the classification objective.

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

Modern language models rely on pretraining filters to remove undesirable content from training corpora and inference-time guardrails to suppress undesirable outputs during deployment. In this paper, we examine how these filtering and moderation decisions produce forms of epistemic erasure and reveal tensions both across automated systems and between these systems and human judgment. We audit four pretraining filters and three inference-time guardrails on Common Crawl sentences containing gender and regional-origin mentions, together with a manually annotated subset of 500 sentences. Our analysis shows that filtering and guardrail decisions are strongly associated with blocklist-based lexical cues, while frequently failing to flag content containing private information or explicit hate speech. At the same time, marginalized groups, particularly transgender people, women, and Central Americans, are significantly over-flagged across systems. Human annotators, by contrast, would retain 88.5% of filter-flagged and 91.3% of guardrail-flagged content, often recognizing representational harms arising from tensions of content removal that current systems fail to capture. Taken together, our findings document a form of epistemic erasure in which mentions of marginalized groups are disproportionately removed before pretraining and additionally suppressed again at inference time.

Suicide memes are memes used to express suicide-related thoughts or comment on suicide-related issues. Suicide memes are increasingly common on social media, yet remain poorly understood and potentially harmful. There is an urgent need to better understand their characteristics and to develop appropriate content moderation strategies that limits users' exposure to potentially harmful content. Currently, the absence of annotated datasets of suicide memes remains a key barrier to developing and evaluating automated moderation approaches. In this paper, we introduce FigSIM, the first dataset designed for fine-grained analysis of suicide memes. The dataset consists of 1049 memes, each annotated for (1) fine-grained suicide severity levels, (2) figurative phenomena (e.g., metaphors), and (3) suicide-related content (e.g., suicide method depiction). We benchmark 16 unimodal and multimodal models across three tasks: figurative language, suicide severity, and suicide-related content detection. Overall, FigSIM demonstrates that suicide memes pose unique challenges for both modeling and content moderation. Analysis revealed biases, such as underprediction of higher suicide severity levels, especially for figurative memes. The dataset (including splits used for analyses) is publicly available. Content Warning: This paper contains suicide-related content that may be triggering.

The spread of hate speech has become increasingly harmful in modern digital environments, particularly on social networking platforms. While recent advances have shown promising results in automatic hate speech detection, a key challenge remains: distinguishing genuine hate speech from reclaimed language. Accurate labeling is difficult due to the nuanced and context-dependent nature of reclaimed expressions. In this paper, we present a simple and interpretable approach for distinguishing hate speech from reclaimed language, developed for the MultiPride Shared Task. Our method generates dense semantic text embeddings and incorporates a label-noise filtering stage using Cleanlab with logistic regression, followed by a Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP) neural network for final classification. The system is designed to operate under limited computational resources while maintaining strong performance. We evaluate our approach using precision, recall, and F1-score, including macro-averaged metrics. Experimental results demonstrate robust performance despite extreme class imbalance in the dataset. Overall, the findings highlight the potential for further improvements through larger embedding models and more advanced preprocessing techniques while preserving interpretability.

Human disagreement is ubiquitous and well-known in labeling. However, variation in explanations, captured through token-level human rationales, remains far less explored. At the same time, it is unclear how to best evaluate human labels and rationales -- or even how to best aggregate rationales beyond majority vote -- in light of this variation. Yet, rationales may provide additional insights into the richness of human reasoning, that may differ in style, values and interpretations -- especially in subjective NLP tasks like hate speech detection. In this work, we unify diverse models, training strategies, loss functions, and existing evaluation metrics under a single protocol by systematically re-implementing them across different label and rationale representation spaces. Classification metrics are organized around two key properties -- predictive and distributional -- while explainability metrics through three complementary dimensions: plausibility, faithfulness, and complexity. In this unified supervision framework, we evaluate model behavior across classification and explainability metrics, as well as metric sensitivity to the choice of label (hard and soft) and rationale representation space (hard, intermediate and soft). Results show that both hard and soft metrics favor softer representations, highlighting their effectiveness in capturing variation and the need to rethink evaluation in subjective NLP.

Hateful meme detection remains a formidable challenge for vision-language models, as existing benchmarks are structurally observational - confounding rhetorical hate mechanisms with target community features and preventing causal evaluation of model vulnerabilities. To address this, we introduce FBHM, a systematically curated benchmark of Functionality Based Hateful Memes constructed along two orthogonal axes: 25 distinct rhetorical functionalities and 10 target communities (5,000 memes total). Benchmarking state-of-the-art VLMs reveals a severe generalization gap: models highly accurate on standard datasets catastrophically drop to near-random performance on FBHM, proving they exploit dataset-specific heuristics rather than robust multimodal reasoning. To efficiently close this gap, we propose LSV (learnable steering vectors), an ultra-low data regime strategy that applies a causal intervention objective on as few as 500 steering samples (50 unique base memes), boosting FBHM performance by ~30 Macro-F1 points while outperforming in-context learning and PEFT without degrading source-domain performance.

Suicide is a critical global public health challenge, causing approximately 720,000 deaths each year and calling for timely, effective prevention strategies. Existing computational studies primarily focus on post-based social media platforms such as Twitter and Weibo, leaving instant messaging environments such as Telegram underexplored. Yet group chats pose distinct challenges: messages are short, fragmented, multi-party, and often rely on implicit or culturally specific expressions, making isolated post-level analysis insufficient. We introduce SuiChat-CN, a Chinese group-chat benchmark for contextual suicide risk assessment. We collect public Telegram group-chat data, construct coherent conversational segments through signal-word extraction and bidirectional context expansion, and annotate user risk levels with an expert-validated, LLM-assisted paradigm. SuiChat-CN contains 13,312 contextual segments from 1,406 users, covering 258,228 raw chat messages. Extensive experiments with PLMs and more than 40 LLMs demonstrate that contextual information is essential for reliable risk assessment, while fine-tuning and partial-context evaluation further reveal the challenges of early detection in multi-party conversations. Due to ethical and sensitivity concerns, the dataset is not publicly released but will be shared with accredited mental health and suicide-prevention research institutions upon reasonable request.

We introduce interaction SSD, an extension of Supervised Semantic Differential that models how semantic meaning varies across moderators such as groups, traits, or conditions making this variation testable and interpretable. The method estimates a main semantic gradient, an interaction gradient, and conditional gradients, all interpretable through standard SSD tools. We illustrate it on the UC Berkeley Measuring Hate Speech corpus, testing whether annotator racial identity moderates hate-speech judgments of comments targeting people of color. The interaction model detects a significant moderation effect: the shared gradient contrasts dehumanizing hostility with counter-speech, while the interaction gradient reveals smaller group-linked differences in which semantic cues predict hate-speech ratings. Interaction SSD makes moderated meaning-outcome relationships statistically testable and interpretable.

Demographic information is often used to model annotator perspectives in subjective tasks such as hate speech detection, but its benefit is inconsistent: it improves performance in some settings and behaves as noise in others. This paper asks when demographic features help. We analyze demographic gain as a function of both data split properties and modeling frameworks. For data splits, we measure annotator disagreement, namely how often annotators assign different labels to the same example, along with training size and train-test demographic coverage. We find that demographic gains concentrate in regimes with low training disagreement, high test disagreement, fine-grained ambiguity measurement, sufficient training data, and greater demographic overlap. Motivated by these regimes, we introduce a gated demographic residual model that treats demographics as a selective adjustment to text-only predictions. Experiments on MHS and POPQUORN show that this design is effective, especially on high disagreement or low confidence examples. Overall, our results suggest that demographics should not be assumed useful by default; their value depends jointly on the data regime and the modeling framework.

Hate speech annotation is costly, subjective, and prone to annotator disagreement, making large-scale dataset construction challenging. We systematically analyze how well large language models (LLMs) align with human judgments across ten theoretically grounded subjective attributes, such as dehumanization, violence, and sentiment, evaluating both small and large variants of Llama 3.1 and Qwen 2.5. Our analysis reveals a consistent split across all models: behaviorally explicit dimensions (insult, humiliate, attack-defend) correlate strongly with human annotations, while evaluative dimensions (respect, sentiment, hate speech) are systematically inverted. Demographic persona conditioning reduces model confidence without improving alignment. Building on these insights, we propose combining attribute-level LLM predictions via a confidence-weighted Ridge regression to reconstruct continuous hate speech scores from the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, achieving $R^2$ of up to 0.71 and outperforming direct prompting baselines, demonstrating that structured attribute decomposition recovers a richer and more human-aligned signal than end-to-end label prediction alone.

Research on harmful meme detection has garnered significant attention, resulting in the development of numerous datasets and methods. However, progress in detecting Chinese harmful memes lags considerably, primarily due to two challenges: first, accurately assessing a meme's harmfulness depends heavily on understanding deep cultural context; second, many memes are semantically ambiguous, making harmfulness highly subjective. To address these issues, we focus on the interpretable detection of Chinese harmful memes by constructing the first Chinese harmful meme explanation dataset, Ex-ToxiCN-MM. This dataset offers opposing interpretations, categorized as "harmful" and "non-harmful", for each meme, aiming to rigorously evaluate a model's ability to discern and comprehend ambiguous, culturally grounded content. We built a specialized knowledge base of Chinese cultural concepts and offensive vocabulary to supply models with essential prior knowledge (C-HarmKB). To address the ambiguity and lack of background knowledge in meme attribution, we have developed a comprehensive attribution analysis framework, RIKE, which includes an Attribution Knowledge Enhancement module (AKE) and a Relative Intent Reasoning module (RIR). Extensive quantitative and qualitative experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms mainstream baseline models across multiple metrics in the task of attributing harmful memes in Chinese. The code, Ex-ToxiCN-MM dataset, and Chinese Harmful Semantic Knowledge Base (C-HarmKB) involved in this study have been open-sourced at https://github.com/wimiw123/Ex-ToxiCN-MM

Social media has become a crucial arena for shaping public narratives during armed conflicts, providing space for both harmful and constructive communication. While hate speech and misinformation have been widely studied, expressions that promote resilience, solidarity, and optimism remain underexplored, particularly in Arabic contexts. This paper introduces AraHopeCorpus, the first annotated dataset of Arabic hope speech collected from ten thousand YouTube comments related to the war on Gaza between 2023 and 2024. Using a detailed annotation framework, comments were classified into three categories: hope speech, no hope speech, and neutral or unclear discourse. The dataset shows that hopeful language dominates, accounting for more than sixty four percent of all comments. These expressions of hope appear mainly as religious encouragement, collective solidarity, and optimism for endurance and justice. No hope speech, representing about thirteen percent, reflects despair and disillusionment, while the rest of the comments contain neutral or mixed content. Inter-Annotator Agreement reached substantial levels (Cohen's Kappa equals 0.71), though dialectal variation, sarcasm, and implicit meaning posed annotation challenges. A comparative analysis between human annotators and ChatGPT revealed that large language models can support annotation but remain limited in handling dialectal and culturally embedded expressions. AraHopeCorpus will be released for research purposes under an open and non commercial license. It provides a valuable resource for studying constructive digital discourse, enabling further research on hope speech detection, crisis communication, and resilience in Arabic social media.

Hate speech and misinformation frequently co-occur online, amplifying prejudice and polarization. Given their scale, using Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist expert counterspeech (CS) writing has gained interest, yet prior work has addressed these phenomena separately. We bridge this gap by studying CS generation in contexts where both hate and misinformation co-occur. We test three knowledge-driven generation strategies: first we prompt an LLM with fact-checkers' guidelines and fact-checking articles; secondly, with NGOs' guidelines and reports; thirdly, we create a mixed strategy that combines guidelines and documents from both. 23 experts revise the generated CS, which are assessed via human and automatic metrics. While LLMs produce adequate CS in 40% of cases, expert edits substantially improve naturalness, exhaustiveness, and adherence to guidelines. Based on the post-edited CS, the mixed strategy proves to be the most effective in crowdsourcing evaluation, pairing strong factual correction with stereotype mitigation and empathetic engagement. We release a dataset of hateful and misinformed claims with expert-verified CS and supporting knowledge.

In recent years social media has become an increasingly popular tool for communication. People use it to share their ideas, exchange information, and discuss thoughts. Given its prevalence and widespread reach, social media must remain a safe space for people. Content generated on social media can be abusive and it has become increasingly important to detect such content. In this paper, we use a language-based preprocessing and an ensemble of several models and analyze their performance of abusive comment detection. Through extensive experimentation, we propose a pipeline that minimizes the false-positive rate (marking non-abusive as abusive) so that these systems can detect abusive comments without undermining the freedom of expression.

We present ArabDiscrim, a decade-long lexical resource and corpus of 293K public Arabic Facebook posts (2014--2024) discussing racism and discrimination. Unlike existing Twitter-centric datasets, ArabDiscrim integrates platform-native engagement signals, including reactions, shares, comments, and page metadata, enabling joint analysis of language and audience response. The resource includes 200 curated terms (100 racism-related and 100 discrimination-related) with morphological regex families (13+ inflections per lemma), and 20 discrimination axes capturing identity-based grounds for unequal treatment. It also provides explicit attribution patterns. Released under a restricted research-use license for ethical compliance with platform terms, ArabDiscrim supports weak supervision, axis-aware sampling, and platform ecology research. By bridging lexical depth and ecological validity, it establishes a foundation for fairness-oriented, platform-aware Arabic NLP.

Memes have become a prominent medium of political communication in the Arab world, reflecting how humor, imagery, and text interact to express ideological and cultural positions. Despite the centrality of memes to online political discourse, there is a lack of systematically curated resources for analyzing their multimodal and ideological dimensions in Arabic. This paper presents ArPoMeme, a large-scale dataset of approximately 7,300 Arabic political memes categorized by ideological orientation, including Leftist, Islamist, Pan-Arabist, and Satirical perspectives. The dataset captures the diversity of Arabic meme ecosystems by grounding classification in the self-identification of public Facebook pages and groups that produce and disseminate these memes. To ensure both scale and accuracy, we designed a semi-automated data collection pipeline combining Playwright-based Facebook scraping with Google Drive synchronization, followed by text extraction using the Qwen2.5-VL-7B vision language model. The extracted text was manually verified and annotated for three polarization dimensions: Us vs. Them framing, Hostility toward out-groups, and Calls to action. Annotation was conducted through a custom Streamlit-based interface supporting distributed labeling, real-time tracking, and version control. The resulting dataset links visual content, textual messages, and ideological orientation, enabling fine-grained analysis of political antagonism, mobilization, and humor. Quantitative analysis of the annotated corpus reveals strong asymmetries in antagonistic framing across ideological groups, with Islamist and satirical memes exhibiting the highest levels of hostility and mobilization cues. The dataset and the annotation tool offers a reproducible and publicly available resource for studying Arabic political discourse, multimodal ideology detection, and polarization dynamics.

Toxic speech detection has become a crucial challenge in maintaining safe online communication environments. However, existing approaches to toxic speech detection often neglect the contribution of paralinguistic cues, such as emotion, intonation, and speech rate, which are key to detecting speech toxicity. Moreover, current toxic speech datasets are predominantly text-based, limiting the development of models that can capture paralinguistic cues.To address these challenges, we present ToxiAlert-Bench, a large-scale audio dataset comprising over 30,000 audio clips annotated with seven major toxic categories and twenty fine-grained toxic labels. Uniquely, our dataset annotates toxicity sources -- distinguishing between textual content and paralinguistic origins -- for comprehensive toxic speech analysis.Furthermore, we propose a dual-head neural network with a multi-stage training strategy tailored for toxic speech detection. This architecture features two task-specific classification headers: one for identifying the source of sensitivity (textual or paralinguistic), and the other for categorizing the specific toxic type. The training process involves independent head training followed by joint fine-tuning to reduce task interference. To mitigate data class imbalance, we incorporate class-balanced sampling and weighted loss functions.Our experimental results show that leveraging paralinguistic features significantly improves detection performance. Our method consistently outperforms existing baselines across multiple evaluation metrics, with a 21.1% relative improvement in Macro-F1 score and a 13.0% relative gain in accuracy over the strongest baseline, highlighting its enhanced effectiveness and practical applicability.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on web-scale corpora inherently absorb toxic patterns from their training data. This leads to toxic degeneration where even innocuous prompts can trigger harmful outputs. This phenomenon poses significant risks for real-world deployments. Thus, necessitating effective mitigation strategies that should maintain model utility while ensuring safety. In this comprehensive replication study, we evaluate the efficacy of DExperts (Decoding-time Experts), which is an inference-time mitigation technique that steers generation without requiring model retraining. We structured our research into three systematic phases: (1) establishing baseline toxicity measurements using RealToxicityPrompts on standard GPT-2 models; then (2) implementing and evaluating DExperts to mitigate explicit toxicity; and finally (3) stress-testing the method against implicit hate speech using the adversarial ToxiGen dataset. Our empirical results confirm that while DExperts achieves near-perfect safety rates (100%) on explicit toxicity benchmarks, it exhibits brittleness against adversarial, implicit hate speech, with safety rates dropping to 98.5%. Furthermore, we quantify a critical trade-off. The method introduces a 10x latency penalty (from 0.2s to 2.0s per generation), posing challenges for real-time deployment scenarios. This study contributes to the growing body of work on AI safety by highlighting the robustness gap between explicit and implicit toxicity mitigation. We emphasize the need for more sophisticated approaches that generalize across diverse hate-speech patterns without incurring prohibitive computational costs.

This paper presents a multi-stage framework for detecting reclaimed slurs in multilingual social media discourse. It addresses the challenge of identifying reclamatory versus non-reclamatory usage of LGBTQ+-related slurs across English, Spanish, and Italian tweets. The framework handles three intertwined methodological challenges like data scarcity, class imbalance, and cross-linguistic variation in sentiment expression. It integrates data-driven model selection via cross-validation, semantic-preserving augmentation through back-translation, inductive transfer learning with dynamic epoch-level undersampling, and domain-specific knowledge injection via masked language modeling. Eight multilingual embedding models were evaluated systematically, with XLM-RoBERTa selected as the foundation model based on macro-averaged F1 score. Data augmentation via GPT-4o-mini back-translation to alternate languages effectively tripled the training corpus while preserving semantic content and class distribution ratios. The framework produces four final runs for the evaluation purposes where RUN 1 is inductive transfer learning with augmentation and undersampling, RUN 2 with masked language modeling pre-training, RUN 3 and RUN 4 are previous predictions refined via language-specific decision thresholds optimized via ROC analysis. Language-specific threshold refinement reveals that optimal decision boundaries vary significantly across languages. This reflects distributional differences in model confidence scores and linguistic variation in reclamatory language usage. The threshold-based optimization yields 2-5% absolute F1 improvement without requiring model retraining. The methodology is fully reproducible, with all code and experimental setup available at https://github.com/rbg-research/MultiPRIDE-Evalita-2026.

LLM annotators are increasingly used in computational social science (CSS), but it is unclear whether their alignment-shaped errors preserve the empirical conclusions a researcher would report. We audit three open-source 7B instruction-tuned models (Zephyr, Mistral-Instruct, Qwen2.5-Instruct) across six TweetEval tasks under four prompt conditions (72 cells) and find that social-desirability failures do not run in a single direction. Zephyr exhibits leniency bias, systematically under-applying harmful labels (offensive language: false benign rate 0.729, false alarm rate 0.031). Mistral and Qwen exhibit overcorrection, over-applying the same labels (Mistral hate-speech FAR = 0.604). All three models exhibit neutrality bias on abortion stance, underestimating opposition prevalence by 24 to 40 percentage points and inflating the neutral label. None of the four prompting interventions we test (neutral, safety framing, depersonalized, chain-of-thought) corrects these failures across models; safety framing can worsen stance distortion. Strikingly, Zephyr's hate-speech prevalence estimate matches the gold rate exactly while its class-conditional errors are large in both directions, an accidental cancellation that misleads aggregate validation. We translate these patterns into a three-part taxonomy with diagnostic FBR/FAR signatures and a lightweight gold-sample validation protocol. The headline for trustworthy CSS: a model that looks calibrated on aggregate metrics can still flip the substantive empirical conclusion a researcher would report.

Threat detection in Natural Language Processing lacks consistent definitions and standardized benchmarks, and is often conflated with broader phenomena such as toxicity, hate speech, or offensive language. In this work, we introduce ThreatCore, a public available benchmark dataset for fine-grained threat detection that distinguishes between explicit threats, implicit threats, and non-threats. The dataset is constructed by aggregating multiple publicly available resources and systematically re-annotating them under a unified operational definition of threat, revealing substantial inconsistencies across existing labels. To improve the coverage of underrepresented cases, particularly implicit threats, we further augment the dataset with synthetic examples, which are manually validated using the same annotation protocol adopted for the re-annotation of the public datasets, ensuring consistency across all data sources. We evaluate Perspective API, zero-shot classifiers, and recent language models on ThreatCore, showing that implicit threats remain substantially harder to detect than explicit ones. Our results also indicate that incorporating Semantic Role Labeling as an intermediate representation can improve performance by making the structure of harmful intent more explicit. Overall, ThreatCore provides a more consistent benchmark for studying fine-grained threat detection and highlights the challenges that current models still face in identifying indirect expressions of harmful intent.

Human label variation has been established as a central phenomenon in NLP: the perspectives different annotators have on the same item need to be embraced. Data collection practices thus shifted towards increasing the annotator numbers and releasing disaggregated datasets, harmful language being most resourced due to its high subjectivity. While this resulted in rich information about \textit{who} annotated (sociodemographics, attitudes, etc.), the \textit{what} (e.g., linguistic properties of items), and their interplay has received little attention. We present the first large-scale analysis of four reference datasets for harmful language detection, bringing together annotator characteristics, linguistic properties of the items, and their interactions in a statistically informed picture. We find that interactions are crucial, revealing intersectional effects ignored in previous work, and that a strong role is played by lexical cues and annotator attitudes. Effect patterns, however, vary considerably across datasets. This urges caution about generalization and transferability.

This paper compares a PyCaret AutoML branch and a CNN-BiLSTM branch for binary hate speech detection on Indonesian Twitter using the HS label from the corpus of Ibrohim and Budi. Both branches share the same preprocessing pipeline so that the comparison reflects modelling differences rather than inconsistent data preparation. The conventional branch uses TF-IDF with a lexicon-based abusive-word count, whereas the neural branch learns dense token representations and captures both local phrase patterns and bidirectional context. The benchmark is built from the released 13,130-row annotation table, whose HS label yields a 58:42 class ratio. On the held-out split, CNN-BiLSTM achieves the best result with 83.8% accuracy, 79.8% precision, 82.7% recall, and 81.2% F1-score. Within the PyCaret branch, Random Forest is the strongest conventional model with 77.2% accuracy and 77.0% F1-score. The neural branch therefore improves accuracy by 6.6 points and F1-score by 4.2 points. Exploratory corpus analysis, learning curves, and confusion matrices show that the dataset is short-text, moderately imbalanced, and still difficult because many decisions depend on local lexical cues plus short contextual composition. The study concludes that PyCaret AutoML is an effective conventional benchmarking framework, whereas CNN-BiLSTM is the stronger end model for the reported benchmark setting.

SemEval-2026 Task 9 is focused on multilingual polarization detection. Specifically, it covers the identification of multilingual, multicultural and multievent polarization along three axes (in subtasks), namely detection, type, and manifestation. Online polarization presents a concern, because it is often followed by hate speech, offensive discourse, and social fragmentation. Therefore, its detection before it escalates is crucial for a safer and more inclusive online space. We have coped with this SemEval task by finetuning mid-size LLMs for the sequence-classification task using the QLoRA parameter-efficient finetuning technique. The training data augmented the multilingual (22 languages) training sets by anonymized, lower-cased, upper-cased, and homoglyphied counterparts, making the detection more robust.

Information disorder is a challenging phenomenon that affects society at large. This phenomenon entails the diffusion of misleading, misinforming, and hateful content online. In different contexts, one aspect of the problem may prevail, but overall, this is a broad problem that requires comprehensive solutions. While each dimension of the problem (hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, etc.) requires in-depth analysis, in this paper, we look into the possibility of argument structure to provide relevant information to link these different areas of the problem. In particular, we focus on the WSF-ARG+ dataset, which consists of white supremacy forum messages annotated in terms of argument structure (premises and conclusion). There, we leverage the checkworthiness and hatefulness annotations of the argument components to obtain insights into the hatefulness of the whole message. Our results show promising insights (up to 96% F1), indicating the possibility of extending this direction in the future to tackle hateful content identification and information disorder countering.