# Diagnosing Hate Speech Classification: Where Do Humans and Machines Disagree, and Why?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10153 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10153/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.04606/) (2016)
- [Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.01644/) (2016)
- [MTEB: Massive Text Embedding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07316/) (2022)
- [NV-Embed: Improved Techniques for Training LLMs as Generalist Embedding Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.17428/) (2024)
- [Linear Algebraic Structure of Word Senses, with Applications to Polysemy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1601.03764/) (2016)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Fair Text Classification via Transferable Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07691/) (2025)
- [Towards Transparent Stance Detection: A Zero-Shot Approach Using Implicit and Explicit Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.03635/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This study uses the cosine similarity ratio, embedding regression, and manual re-annotation to diagnose hate speech classification. We begin by computing cosine similarity ratio on a dataset "Measuring Hate Speech" that contains 135,556 annotated comments on social media. This way, we show a basic use of cosine similarity as a description of hate speech content. We then diagnose hate speech classification starting from understanding the inconsistency of human annotation from the dataset. Using embedding regression as a basic diagnostic, we found that female annotators are more sensitive to racial slurs that target the black population. We perform with a more complicated diagnostic by training a hate speech classifier using a SoTA pre-trained large language model, NV-Embed-v2, to convert texts to embeddings and run a logistic regression. This classifier achieves a testing accuracy of 94%. In diagnosing where machines disagree with human annotators, we found that machines make fewer mistakes than humans despite the fact that human annotations are treated as ground truth in the training set. Machines perform better in correctly labeling long statements of facts, but perform worse in labeling short instances of swear words. We hypothesize that this is due to model alignment - while curating models at their creation prevents the models from producing obvious hate speech, it also reduces the model's ability to detect such content.