arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2510.16359

Utilising Large Language Models for Generating Effective Counter Arguments to Anti-Vaccine Tweets

Abstract

In an era where public health is increasingly influenced by information shared on social media, combatting vaccine skepticism and misinformation has become a critical societal goal. Misleading narratives around vaccination have spread widely, creating barriers to achieving high immunisation rates and undermining trust in health recommendations. While efforts to detect misinformation have made significant progress, the generation of real time counter-arguments tailored to debunk such claims remains an insufficiently explored area. In this work, we explore the capabilities of LLMs to generate sound counter-argument rebuttals to vaccine misinformation. Building on prior research in misinformation debunking, we experiment with various prompting strategies and fine-tuning approaches to optimise counter-argument generation. Additionally, we train classifiers to categorise anti-vaccine tweets into multi-labeled categories such as concerns about vaccine efficacy, side effects, and political influences allowing for more context aware rebuttals. Our evaluation, conducted through human judgment, LLM based assessments, and automatic metrics, reveals strong alignment across these methods. Our findings demonstrate that integrating label descriptions and structured fine-tuning enhances counter-argument effectiveness, offering a promising approach for mitigating vaccine misinformation at scale.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Utsav Dhanuka, Soham Poddar, Saptarshi Ghosh. 2025-10-18. Utilising Large Language Models for Generating Effective Counter Arguments to Anti-Vaccine Tweets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16359

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL