Abstract
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.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03324
