Evaluation of Hate Speech Detection Using Large Language Models and Geographical Contextualization

The proliferation of hate speech on social media is one of the serious issues that is bringing huge impacts to society: an escalation of violence, discrimination, and social fragmentation. The problem of detecting hate speech is intrinsically multifaceted due to cultural, linguistic, and contextual complexities and adversarial manipulations. In this study, we systematically investigate the performance of LLMs on detecting hate speech across multilingual datasets and diverse geographic contexts. Our work presents a new evaluation framework in three dimensions: binary classification of hate speech, geography-aware contextual detection, and robustness to adversarially generated text. Using a dataset of 1,000 comments from five diverse regions, we evaluate three state-of-the-art LLMs: Llama2 (13b), Codellama (7b), and DeepSeekCoder (6.7b). Codellama had the best binary classification recall with 70.6% and an F1-score of 52.18%, whereas DeepSeekCoder had the best performance in geographic sensitivity, correctly detecting 63 out of 265 locations. The tests for adversarial robustness also showed significant weaknesses; Llama2 misclassified 62.5% of manipulated samples. These results bring to light the trade-offs between accuracy, contextual understanding, and robustness in the current versions of LLMs. This work has thus set the stage for developing contextually aware, multilingual hate speech detection systems by underlining key strengths and limitations, therefore offering actionable insights for future research and real-world applications.

A Comprehensive Study of the Capabilities of Large Language Models for Vulnerability Detection

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for code generation and other software engineering tasks. Vulnerability detection is of crucial importance to maintaining the security, integrity, and trustworthiness of software systems. Precise vulnerability detection requires reasoning about the code, making it a good case study for exploring the limits of LLMs' reasoning capabilities. Although recent work has applied LLMs to vulnerability detection using generic prompting techniques, their full capabilities for this task and the types of errors they make when explaining identified vulnerabilities remain unclear. In this paper, we surveyed eleven LLMs that are state-of-the-art in code generation and commonly used as coding assistants, and evaluated their capabilities for vulnerability detection. We systematically searched for the best-performing prompts, incorporating techniques such as in-context learning and chain-of-thought, and proposed three of our own prompting methods. Our results show that while our prompting methods improved the models' performance, LLMs generally struggled with vulnerability detection. They reported 0.5-0.63 Balanced Accuracy and failed to distinguish between buggy and fixed versions of programs in 76% of cases on average. By comprehensively analyzing and categorizing 287 instances of model reasoning, we found that 57% of LLM responses contained errors, and the models frequently predicted incorrect locations of buggy code and misidentified bug types. LLMs only correctly localized 6 out of 27 bugs in DbgBench, and these 6 bugs were predicted correctly by 70-100% of human participants. These findings suggest that despite their potential for other tasks, LLMs may fail to properly comprehend critical code structures and security-related concepts. Our data and code are available at https://figshare.com/s/78fe02e56e09ec49300b.