Assisted Counterspeech Writing at the Crossroads of Hate Speech and Misinformation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22435v1
• Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 13:02:08 GMT
• Title: Assisted Counterspeech Writing at the Crossroads of Hate Speech and Misinformation
• Abstract summary: Hate speech and misinformation frequently co-occur online, amplifying prejudice and polarization.<n>Given their scale, using Large Language Models to assist expert counterspeech has gained interest.<n>We bridge this gap by studying CS generation in contexts where both hate and misinformation co-occur.
• Score: 9.965670989893267
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Hate speech and misinformation frequently co-occur online, amplifying prejudice and polarization. Given their scale, using Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist expert counterspeech (CS) writing has gained interest, yet prior work has addressed these phenomena separately. We bridge this gap by studying CS generation in contexts where both hate and misinformation co-occur. We test three knowledge-driven generation strategies: first we prompt an LLM with fact-checkers' guidelines and fact-checking articles; secondly, with NGOs' guidelines and reports; thirdly, we create a mixed strategy that combines guidelines and documents from both. 23 experts revise the generated CS, which are assessed via human and automatic metrics. While LLMs produce adequate CS in 40% of cases, expert edits substantially improve naturalness, exhaustiveness, and adherence to guidelines. Based on the post-edited CS, the mixed strategy proves to be the most effective in crowdsourcing evaluation, pairing strong factual correction with stereotype mitigation and empathetic engagement. We release a dataset of hateful and misinformed claims with expert-verified CS and supporting knowledge.

Related papers

• A Multi-Stage Agentic Framework for Effective Counter-Narrative Generation and Refinement [1.2599533416395763]
  Counter-narratives can reduce polarization, fuel public distrusts, and strengthen extremist narratives.<n>We present a multi-stage agent-based framework for generating, refining, and evaluating CNs.<n> CNs are applied to pro-Russian hate and misinformation narratives on the war with Ukraine and adaptable to other domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-12T23:00:19Z)
• CATCH-ME if you RAG: a dataset of Contextually Annotated multi-Turn Counterspeech against Hate and Misinformation Exchanges [9.965670989893267]
  We introduce the first large-scale, expert-curated, multilingual dataset of dialogues tackling the intersection of hate and misinformation.<n> Covering five languages and targeting hate directed at seven marginalized groups, this novel resource enables the training and evaluation of more persuasive, factually grounded counterspeech models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-18T15:32:14Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• Passing the Turing Test in Political Discourse: Fine-Tuning LLMs to Mimic Polarized Social Media Comments [0.0]
  This study explores the extent to which fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) can replicate and amplify polarizing discourse.<n>Using a curated dataset of politically charged discussions extracted from Reddit, we fine-tune an open-source LLM to produce context-aware and ideologically aligned responses.<n>The results indicate that, when trained on partisan data, LLMs are capable of producing highly plausible and provocative comments, often indistinguishable from those written by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:41:26Z)
• Profiling News Media for Factuality and Bias Using LLMs and the Fact-Checking Methodology of Human Experts [29.95198868148809]
  We propose a novel methodology that emulates the criteria that professional fact-checkers use to assess the factuality and political bias of an entire outlet.<n>We provide an in-depth error analysis of the effect of media popularity and region on model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T15:49:20Z)
• ThinkEval: Practical Evaluation of Knowledge Leakage in LLM Editing using Thought-based Knowledge Graphs [3.9295613363026174]
  We present ThinkEval, a framework to quantify indirect knowledge leakage and ripple effects in model-editing.<n>ThinkEval builds and employs specialized knowledge graphs to analyze the causal structure of facts before and after editing.<n>We evaluate five editing techniques: AlphaEdit, RECT, ROME, MEMIT, and PRUNE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T07:24:12Z)
• Illusions of Relevance: Using Content Injection Attacks to Deceive Retrievers, Rerankers, and LLM Judges [52.96987928118327]
  We find that embedding models for retrieval, rerankers, and large language model (LLM) relevance judges are vulnerable to content injection attacks.<n>We identify two primary threats: (1) inserting unrelated or harmful content within passages that still appear deceptively "relevant", and (2) inserting entire queries or key query terms into passages to boost their perceived relevance.<n>Our study systematically examines the factors that influence an attack's success, such as the placement of injected content and the balance between relevant and non-relevant material.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T18:02:15Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• Countering Misinformation via Emotional Response Generation [15.383062216223971]
  proliferation of misinformation on social media platforms (SMPs) poses a significant danger to public health, social cohesion and democracy. Previous research has shown how social correction can be an effective way to curb misinformation. We present VerMouth, the first large-scale dataset comprising roughly 12 thousand claim-response pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-17T15:37:18Z)
• Improving Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models: A Study on Demonstration Uncertainty [52.72790059506241]
  Open Information Extraction (OIE) task aims at extracting structured facts from unstructured text. Despite the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT as a general task solver, they lag behind state-of-the-art (supervised) methods in OIE tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T01:35:24Z)
• Automatically Correcting Large Language Models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies [104.32199881187607]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide array of NLP tasks. A promising approach to rectify these flaws is self-correction, where the LLM itself is prompted or guided to fix problems in its own output. This paper presents a comprehensive review of this emerging class of techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T18:38:52Z)
• Context-faithful Prompting for Large Language Models [51.194410884263135]
  Large language models (LLMs) encode parametric knowledge about world facts. Their reliance on parametric knowledge may cause them to overlook contextual cues, leading to incorrect predictions in context-sensitive NLP tasks. We assess and enhance LLMs' contextual faithfulness in two aspects: knowledge conflict and prediction with abstention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-20T17:54:58Z)
• Generating Counter Narratives against Online Hate Speech: Data and Strategies [21.098614110697184]
  We present a study on how to collect responses to hate effectively. We employ large scale unsupervised language models such as GPT-2 for the generation of silver data. The best annotation strategies/neural architectures can be used for data filtering before expert validation/post-editing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-08T19:35:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.