arXiv subjects

Niyati Malhotra

Publications and source records attributed to Niyati Malhotra.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

LLMs Mirror Country-Specific Gender Patterns If Asked, but Skew Male When Generating Media in Local Languages

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate media, but whether their content perpetuates gender stereotypes is unknown: standard benchmarks rely on selection-based formats rather than long-form generation, and surveyed baselines for local gender associations are scarce outside the West. We collect gender associations for 22 occupational and domestic roles from 695 respondents across the United States, India, Kenya, and Nigeria, and evaluate eight LLMs under two regimes: direct questioning and media generation. Models track the surveyed associations under direct questioning but skew substantially more male under media generation in major local-language cells, consistent with the male bias documented in human-produced media. Outside the US, the shift is much smaller and non-significant under English prompting, so English-only or country-agnostic evaluation would miss this bias in the languages where these models are most deployed. Instruction prompting reduces the shift directionally, but trades off against alignment with the surveyed associations. Evaluating LLM gender bias for global deployment therefore requires generation-format testing, local-language prompting, and locally-collected human baselines.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Enforcement and Feasibility of Hate Speech Moderation

Online hate speech is associated with harms ranging from deteriorating mental health to violence, yet how consistently platforms moderate hate, and whether enforcement is feasible at scale, remain poorly understood. We audit hate speech moderation on Twitter (now X) using 540,000 tweets annotated by trained native speakers, representative of a full day on the platform. Five months after posting, 80% of hateful tweets, including violent ones, remained online. Removal was only marginally more likely than for non-hateful tweets, far below scams or adult content, and insensitive to severity and reach. Automated detection could not reliably classify hate but ranked it highly, enabling human triage. Simulating this workflow, current staffing curbed little exposure, yet substantial reductions proved financially feasible, far below applicable regulatory fines. Persistent hate reflects resource allocation, not technical limits.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Different Demographic Cues Yield Inconsistent Conclusions About LLM Personalization and Bias

Demographic cue-based evaluation is widely used to study how large language models (LLMs) adapt their responses to signaled demographic attributes within and across groups. This approach typically relies on a single cue (e.g., names) as a proxy for group membership, implicitly treating different cues as interchangeable operationalizations of a single underlying identity-conditioned behavior. We test this assumption in realistic advice-seeking interactions spanning 14.8 million prompts, focusing on race and gender in a U.S. context. We find that cues for the same group induce only partially overlapping changes in model responses, yielding inconsistent conclusions about personalization, while bias conclusions are unstable, with both magnitude and direction of group differences varying across cues. We further show that these inconsistencies reflect differences in cue-group association strength and linguistic features bundled within cues that shape model responses. Together, our findings suggest that demographic conditioning in LLMs is not a cue-invariant category-level parameter but depends fundamentally on how identity is cued, reflecting responses to linguistic signals rather than stable demographic categories. We therefore call for multi-cue, mechanism-aware evaluations as a foundation for robust and interpretable claims about demographic variation in LLM responses.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Right and Wrong: Evaluating Second-order Social Reasoning in Large Language Models

Previous AI alignment efforts have focused primarily on first-order social norms -- teaching models what is socially acceptable or unacceptable (e.g., `do not steal'). However, social intelligence depends not only on norm recognition, but also on anticipating who will enforce it and how (e.g., public shame or even imprisonment). These second-order expectations, known as metanorms, govern how people respond when social rules are broken. We introduce a novel framework for evaluating metanorm reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) along two dimensions: emotional appraisal and behavioral response, and propose new classification tasks, namely, predicting self-regulation in violators, and other-regulation in observers. We release a multi-perspective dataset, NormReact, of 450 norm violation scenarios, hand-annotated for emotions and behavioral responses across norm violators' gender and observers' social closeness. Current LLMs portray a harsher social world: across six models, they overpredict negative sanctions where humans would expect inaction, and alignment with human judgments deteriorates as social distance increases. These findings suggest that AI systems in norm-sensitive domains from conflict mediation to policy simulation, may risk producing a distorted picture of social regulation: one that over-represents punishment and under-represents the tolerance, restraint, and relational calibration that characterize actual norm enforcement in real world.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

HateDay: Insights from a Global Hate Speech Dataset Representative of a Day on Twitter

To address the global challenge of online hate speech, prior research has developed detection models to flag such content on social media. However, due to systematic biases in evaluation datasets, the real-world effectiveness of these models remains unclear, particularly across geographies. We introduce HateDay, the first global hate speech dataset representative of social media settings, constructed from a random sample of all tweets posted on September 21, 2022 and covering eight languages and four English-speaking countries. Using HateDay, we uncover substantial variation in the prevalence and composition of hate speech across languages and regions. We show that evaluations on academic datasets greatly overestimate real-world detection performance, which we find is very low, especially for non-European languages. Our analysis identifies key drivers of this gap, including models' difficulty to distinguish hate from offensive speech and a mismatch between the target groups emphasized in academic datasets and those most frequently targeted in real-world settings. We argue that poor model performance makes public models ill-suited for automatic hate speech moderation and find that high moderation rates are only achievable with substantial human oversight. Our results underscore the need to evaluate detection systems on data that reflects the complexity and diversity of real-world social media.

cs.CL↗