We present a novel approach for enhancing diversity and control in data annotation tasks by personalizing large language models (LLMs). We investigate the impact of injecting diverse persona descriptions into LLM prompts across two studies, exploring whether personas increase annotation diversity and whether the impacts of individual personas on the resulting annotations are consistent and controllable. Our results indicate that persona-prompted LLMs generate more diverse annotations than LLMs prompted without personas, and that the effects of personas on LLM annotations align with subjective differences in human annotations. These effects are both controllable and repeatable, making our approach a valuable tool for enhancing data annotation in subjective NLP tasks such as toxicity detection.

Detecting harmful content is a crucial task in the landscape of NLP applications for Social Good, with hate speech being one of its most dangerous forms. But what do we mean by hate speech, how can we define it and how does prompting different definitions of hate speech affect model performance? The contribution of this work is twofold. At the theoretical level, we address the ambiguity surrounding hate speech by collecting and analyzing existing definitions from the literature. We organize these definitions into a taxonomy of 14 conceptual elements—building blocks that capture different aspects of hate speech definitions, such as references to the target of hate. At the experimental level, we employ the collection of definitions in a systematic zero-shot evaluation of three LLMs, on three hate speech datasets representing different types of data (synthetic, human-in-the-loop, and real-world). We find that choosing different definitions, i.e., definitions with a different degree of specificity in terms of encoded elements, impacts model performance, but this effect is not consistent across all architectures.

Recent research indicates that the online use of the term ”bot” has evolved over time. In the past, people used the term to accuse others of displaying automated behavior. However, it has gradually transformed into a linguistic tool to dehumanize the conversation partner, particularly on polarizing topics. Although this trend has been observed in English-speaking contexts, it is still unclear whether it holds true in other socio-linguistic environments. In this work we extend existing work on bot accusations and explore the phenomenon in a multilingual setting. We identify three distinct accusation patterns that characterize the different languages.

NLP models are used in a variety of critical social computing tasks, such as detecting sexist, racist, or otherwise hateful content. Therefore, it is imperative that these models are robust to spurious features. Past work has attempted to tackle such spurious features using training data augmentation, including Counterfactually Augmented Data (CADs). CADs introduce minimal changes to existing training data points and flip their labels; training on them may reduce model dependency on spurious features. However, manually generating CADs can be time-consuming and expensive. Hence in this work, we assess if this task can be automated using generative NLP models. We automatically generate CADs using Polyjuice, ChatGPT, and Flan-T5, and evaluate their usefulness in improving model robustness compared to manually-generated CADs. By testing both model performance on multiple out-of-domain test sets and individual data point efficacy, our results show that while manual CADs are still the most effective, CADs generated by ChatGPT come a close second. One key reason for the lower performance of automated methods is that the changes they introduce are often insufficient to flip the original label.