Counter with Evidence! A Multi-Agent Memory Efficient Reasoning Framework for Hate Category Informed Counterspeech Generation

Counterspeech effectively neutralizes the impact of online hate. Although prior work explores automated counterspeech generation, it largely emphasizes stylistic control while treating hate speech as homogeneous, overlooking that distinct forms of abuse require fundamentally different counterspeech strategies. To address this gap, we introduce FIRE (Factuality Informed Multi-Agent Reasoning Framework) that first decomposes hate speech into one of the five distinct categories (misinformation, stereotype, conspiracy, dehumanizing, non-factual), and then maps it to a targeted counterspeech style. To facilitate FIRE, we curate FactualCS, a novel dataset of $4,784$ instances that provides the annotations regarding hate categories, reasoning traces, and evidence mappings, which are critical elements for grounded generation that are missing in prior work. A comprehensive evaluation across $28$ baseline configurations demonstrates that FIRE significantly surpasses existing methods, despite using compact agents ($<$2B). FIRE achieves a $\sim$ $12 \%$ and $\sim$ $11 \%$ improvements in factual and category-specific accuracy respectively, while simultaneously reducing toxicity by $\sim$ $11 \%$ relative to the strongest baselines. Further human evaluation confirms that responses generated by FIRE are significantly preferred over the strongest baselines, underscoring its effectiveness for real-world deployment. These findings show that decomposing the underlying intent of hate speech is essential for generating safe, effective, and contextually precise counterspeech.

Contextualized Counterspeech Can Be More Persuasive Than Generic Counterspeech

AI-generated counterspeech offers a scalable and effective strategy to mitigate online toxicity by promoting more constructive dialogue. Yet, existing approaches adopt a generic, one-size-fits-all paradigm, overlooking the conversational context and characteristics of the targeted users. Here, we propose and evaluate multiple strategies for generating contextualized counterspeech that is adapted to the moderation setting and personalized to the moderated user. In detail, we explore a range of configurations that integrate different forms of contextual information and fine-tuning techniques. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation combining quantitative indicators with a pre-registered, mixed-design crowdsourcing experiment. To ensure robustness, we implement algorithmic measures of counterspeech quality based on ROUGE, BLEU, and BERTScore, observing overall consistent results across metrics. Furthermore, we analyze which characteristics of both the generated counterspeech and the moderated toxic message most strongly influence perceived persuasiveness, yielding insights into how contextualized interventions can be made more effective. Our findings show that personalization can be effective, but not uniformly so. Lightweight strategies combining conversational context and user history improve perceived adequacy and persuasiveness, whereas several other contextualization strategies degrade human-perceived counterspeech quality. Taken together, these results provide actionable directions for developing more personalized, effective, and responsible counterspeech systems, ultimately advancing human-AI collaboration in online content moderation.

Assisted Counterspeech Writing at the Crossroads of Hate Speech and Misinformation

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.