Fine-tuning with Hierarchical Prompting for Robust Propaganda Classification Across Annotation Schemas

As large language models (LLMs) become default tools for online information verification, an implicit assumption follows them: that scale and general capability are sufficient for nuanced classification of misinformation discourse. We test this assumption directly on 900 Reddit comments spanning three PolitiFact-verified misinformation claims (environment, health, immigration), labelled as belief (propagates the claim), fact-check (corrects it), or other. We compare nine models across three paradigms -- BART-MNLI, three Llama variants, three commercial frontier LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini Flash Lite 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6), and fine-tuned DistilBERT and RoBERTa -- under universal and topic-specific label schemas. The assumption does not hold. Fine-tuned RoBERTa reaches 0.62 macro-$F_1$ against a best zero-shot result of 0.50 (Claude Haiku 4.5), at a fraction of the per-query cost; the supervised advantage is concentrated on the belief class, the implicit, affective category every zero-shot model under-detects. Scaling does not help: Llama-3-8B matches Llama-3-70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 underperforms the smaller Haiku under generic labels, collapsing belief detection to 0.17 and refusing outright on a subset of comments flagged as sensitive. This is a safety-alignment artefact, not a capacity limit. Label schema and topic jointly shape zero-shot performance, with the same model varying by more than 0.13 macro-$F_1$ across topics under matched labels. In a verification context, where missing belief is the costlier error, task-specific fine-tuning remains the more reliable choice despite the proliferation of large generative models.

Russian state propaganda spreads across many languages and online spaces. Yet, most computational work examines only one such space, usually social media, in one or two languages, and analyses sources rather than content. We introduce SWARM (Search-Web documents Annotated for Russian propaganda, Multilingual), a dataset of 2,183 search engine results across nine languages and diverse web domains (e.g., news, blogs, government sites), each annotated by trained coders for whether it supports a recurring Russian propaganda narrative. We benchmark a source-based blocklist, supervised classifiers, and zero-shot LLMs against these labels. The blocklist misses most propaganda-supporting documents, because such content is not confined to flagged "propaganda" outlets but also appears on mainstream ones. Content-level analysis helps, though how much depends on the model: the strongest LLM reaches a positive-class F1 of 0.73, whereas the supervised classifiers reach only about 0.5, with the smaller LLMs over-predicting support, mistaking topical relevance for endorsement. Detecting search-borne propaganda thus requires per-language, content-level evaluation, which we hope SWARM and our evaluation code enable.

Stance detection identifies the attitude of a text author toward a given target. Recent studies have explored various LLM-based strategies for this task, from zero-shot prompting to multi-agent debate. However, existing works differ in data splits, base models, and evaluation protocols, making fair comparison difficult. We conduct a systematic comparison that evaluates five methods across two categories -- prompt-based inference (Direct Prompting, Auto-CoT, StSQA) and agent-based debate (COLA, MPRF) -- on four datasets with 14 subtasks, using 15 LLMs from six model families with parameter sizes from 7B to 72B+. Our experiments yield several findings. First, on all models with complete results, the best prompt-based method outperforms the best agent-based method, while agent methods require 7 to 12 times more API calls per sample. Second, model scale has a larger impact on performance than method choice, with gains plateauing around 32B. Third, reasoning-enhanced models (DeepSeek-R1) do not consistently outperform general models of the same size on this task.