Skip to content
← Back to explorer

When Hate Meets Facts: LLMs-in-the-Loop for Check-worthiness Detection in Hate Speech

Nicolás Benjamín Ocampo, Tommaso Caselli, Davide Ceolin · Mar 26, 2026 · Citations: 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

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda. Failing to jointly address hate speech (HS) and misinformation can deepen prejudice, reinforce harmful stereotypes, and expose bystanders to psychological distress, while polluting public debate. Moreover, these messages require more effort from content moderators because they must assess both harmfulness and veracity, i.e., fact-check them. To address this challenge, we release WSF-ARG+, the first dataset which combines hate speech with check-worthiness information. We also introduce a novel LLM-in-the-loop framework to facilitate the annotation of check-worthy claims. We run our framework, testing it with 12 open-weight LLMs of different sizes and architectures. We validate it through extensive human evaluation, and show that our LLM-in-the-loop framework reduces human effort without compromising the annotation quality of the data. Finally, we show that HS messages with check-worthy claims show significantly higher harassment and hate, and that incorporating check-worthiness labels improves LLM-based HS detection up to 0.213 macro-F1 and to 0.154 macro-F1 on average for large models.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

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

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

37/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

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.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Human Eval, Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda."

Reported Metrics

partial

F1, F1 macro

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Human Eval, Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1f1 macro

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda.
  • Failing to jointly address hate speech (HS) and misinformation can deepen prejudice, reinforce harmful stereotypes, and expose bystanders to psychological distress, while polluting public debate.
  • Moreover, these messages require more effort from content moderators because they must assess both harmfulness and veracity, i.e., fact-check them.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Human evaluation, Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We validate it through extensive human evaluation, and show that our LLM-in-the-loop framework reduces human effort without compromising the annotation quality of the data.
  • Finally, we show that HS messages with check-worthy claims show significantly higher harassment and hate, and that incorporating check-worthiness labels improves LLM-based HS detection up to 0.213 macro-F1 and to 0.154 macro-F1 on average…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We validate it through extensive human evaluation, and show that our LLM-in-the-loop framework reduces human effort without compromising the annotation quality of the data.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Human Eval, Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, f1 macro

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.