Argument Quality Assessment with Large Language Models: A Pairwise Bradley-Terry Approach

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in tasks related to reasoning and judgment. However, assessing the quality of arguments requires a rigorous evaluation. We investigate the extent to which LLMs can effectively perform this task. We tested 12 open-weight LLMs of different sizes and families under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought to approximate expert pairwise comparisons of argument quality across three dimensions-logical, rhetorical, and dialectic-and used these comparisons in a Bradley-Terry model to infer latent strength scores and derive a ranking of arguments. Our insights show that LLMs have promising but moderate correlation with human expert judgments, with Llama-70B obtaining the strongest alignment, reaching moderate Cohen's $κ$ = 0.493 and moderate correlations with Bradley-Terry scores derived from these annotations (Kendall, Pearson, and Spearman: 0.327-0.477). Other LLMs exhibit weak, moderate, or high alignment with Llama-70B while achieving comparable results against human experts, suggesting partial but complementary understanding of underlying quality dimensions despite differences in model size and family. Moreover, LLM predictions are stable across trial runs, with fewer than 7.75\% of cases yielding different labels. Remaining variability is handled via majority voting and few-shot prompting for large-size models.

Leveraging Argument Structure to Predict Content Hatefulness

Information disorder is a challenging phenomenon that affects society at large. This phenomenon entails the diffusion of misleading, misinforming, and hateful content online. In different contexts, one aspect of the problem may prevail, but overall, this is a broad problem that requires comprehensive solutions. While each dimension of the problem (hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, etc.) requires in-depth analysis, in this paper, we look into the possibility of argument structure to provide relevant information to link these different areas of the problem. In particular, we focus on the WSF-ARG+ dataset, which consists of white supremacy forum messages annotated in terms of argument structure (premises and conclusion). There, we leverage the checkworthiness and hatefulness annotations of the argument components to obtain insights into the hatefulness of the whole message. Our results show promising insights (up to 96% F1), indicating the possibility of extending this direction in the future to tackle hateful content identification and information disorder countering.

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

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.

Is Safer Better? The Impact of Guardrails on the Argumentative Strength of LLMs in Hate Speech Countering

The potential effectiveness of counterspeech as a hate speech mitigation strategy is attracting increasing interest in the NLG research community, particularly towards the task of automatically producing it. However, automatically generated responses often lack the argumentative richness which characterises expert-produced counterspeech. In this work, we focus on two aspects of counterspeech generation to produce more cogent responses. First, by investigating the tension between helpfulness and harmlessness of LLMs, we test whether the presence of safety guardrails hinders the quality of the generations. Secondly, we assess whether attacking a specific component of the hate speech results in a more effective argumentative strategy to fight online hate. By conducting an extensive human and automatic evaluation, we show how the presence of safety guardrails can be detrimental also to a task that inherently aims at fostering positive social interactions. Moreover, our results show that attacking a specific component of the hate speech, and in particular its implicit negative stereotype and its hateful parts, leads to higher-quality generations.