Assisted Counterspeech Writing at the Crossroads of Hate Speech and Misinformation

Genoveffa Martone, Helena Bonaldi, Marco Guerini · May 21, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

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.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.