Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This study evaluates structured decision models as a cost-efficient alternative to commercial Large Language Models for hate-speech moderation, finding they can match performance at roughly 3% of the inference cost. The research demonstrates that while these models offer significant economic advantages, adding explicit definitions or decomposing tasks into multiple questions does not reliably enhance classification accuracy. These findings are critical for deploying scalable AI safety systems where budget constraints and latency are primary concerns.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

To Jev or Not? Evaluating the Accuracy and Efficiency of Structured Decision Models for Hate-Speech Moderation

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.03324v1 Announce Type: new 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.

Title:To Jev or Not? Evaluating the Accuracy and Efficiency of Structured Decision Models for Hate-Speech Moderation

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.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.03324 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.03324v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.03324 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 301 words

Related coverage