# A Few Hypocrites: Few-Shot Learning and Subtype Definitions for Detecting Hypocrisy Accusations in Online Climate Change Debates

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16807 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.16807/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 12 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [The Unreliability of Explanations in Few-shot Prompting for Textual Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.03401/) (2022)
- [MultiVerS: Improving scientific claim verification with weak supervision and full-document context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.01640/) (2021)
- [Opening up ChatGPT: Tracking openness, transparency, and accountability in instruction-tuned text generators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05532/) (2023)
- [Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17649/) (2024)
- [Before Name-calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.06613/) (2018)
- [People Make Better Edits: Measuring the Efficacy of LLM-Generated Counterfactually Augmented Data for Harmful Language Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.01270/) (2023)
- [Multitask Instruction-based Prompting for Fallacy Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.09992/) (2023)
- [Reason from Fallacy: Enhancing Large Language Models' Logical Reasoning through Logical Fallacy Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04293/) (2024)
- [Evaluation of an LLM in Identifying Logical Fallacies: A Call for Rigor When Adopting LLMs in HCI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05213/) (2024)
- [Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.13051/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The climate crisis is a salient issue in online discussions, and hypocrisy accusations are a central rhetorical element in these debates. However, for large-scale text analysis, hypocrisy accusation detection is an understudied tool, most often defined as a smaller subtask of fallacious argument detection. In this paper, we define hypocrisy accusation detection as an independent task in NLP, and identify different relevant subtypes of hypocrisy accusations. Our Climate Hypocrisy Accusation Corpus (CHAC) consists of 420 Reddit climate debate comments, expert-annotated into two different types of hypocrisy accusations: personal versus political hypocrisy. We evaluate few-shot in-context learning with 6 shots and 3 instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) for detecting hypocrisy accusations in this dataset. Results indicate that the GPT-4o and Llama-3 models in particular show promise in detecting hypocrisy accusations (F1 reaching 0.68, while previous work shows F1 of 0.44). However, context matters for a complex semantic concept such as hypocrisy accusations, and we find models struggle especially at identifying political hypocrisy accusations compared to personal moral hypocrisy. Our study contributes new insights in hypocrisy detection and climate change discourse, and is a stepping stone for large-scale analysis of hypocrisy accusation in online climate debates.