ProBel: Propaganda Detection with Techniques, Spans, and Explanations
Organizations: Qatar Computing Research Institute, Qatar · University of Padova, Italy
Abstract
Propaganda detection includes several related prediction levels, ranging from sentence-level decisions to technique classification and span identification. However, it remains unclear how supervision at these levels interacts when learned jointly across Arabic and English. We present ProBel, an Arabic and English resource that aligns binary labels, multi-label annotations over 23 propaganda techniques grouped into six coarse categories, technique-labeled spans, and reference explanations for the same news sentences. It includes a substantially larger English collection and supports matched binary, coarse-grained, multi-label, and span-level tasks in both languages. We evaluate zero-shot prompting, task-specific fine-tuning, and joint training under a shared setup. A single bilingual multi-task model achieves the best overall performance and remains competitive across tasks and languages. Cross-task analysis shows that transfer depends on the supervision level. Joint classification training preserves binary performance, whereas span-only training can weaken sentence-level prediction. Joint bilingual training yields the most stable results, while monolingual fine-tuning can reduce transfer to the other language. We will release the data, code, and evaluation scripts.
Figures & tables
| Lang. | PropXplain Train/Dev/Test | ProBel Train/Dev/Test | Added in this work |
| AR | 18,453/1,318/ 1,326 | 18,453/1,318/ 1,326 | Technique labels and annotated spans |
| EN | 4,472/621/ 922 | 18,775/2,567/ 3,993 | Additional data, technique labels, annotated spans, and explanations |
| Lang. | Train | Dev | Test | Total | Pos. (%) |
| AR | 18,453 | 1,318 | 1,326 | 21,097 | 63.7 |
| EN | 20,077 | 2,567 | 3,993 | 26,637 | 28.0 |
| Total | 38,530 | 3,885 | 5,319 | 47,734 | 43.8 |
| System | AR | EN |
| No learning | ||
| Majority label | 0.380 | 0.419 |
| Random, fair coin | 0.499 | 0.470 |
| Zero-shot, open weights | ||
| Fanar-2-27B 26 | 0.409 | 0.431 |
| Llama-3.1-8B 11 | 0.672 | 0.437 |
| ProBel | Original | |
| English training data | EN test | EN test |
| Original, binary only | 0.582 | 0.641 |
| Expanded, binary only | 0.711 | 0.593 |
| Expanded, multi-task bilingual | 0.735 | 0.685 |
| Starting point | Training | Bin | Avg. |
| Qwen2.5-7B | none (zero-shot) | 0.561 | 0.256 |
| off-policy, GPT-5 traces | 0.697 | 0.441 | |
| OPSD, best configuration | 0.623 | 0.288 | |
| Qwen3-8B | none (zero-shot) | 0.490 | 0.295 |
| OPSD, hard | 0.499 | 0.298 | |
| OPSD, hard | 0.485 | 0.295 |
| Testbed (metric) | Zero-shot | Hard | Soft | |
| ProBel EN binary (macro-F 1 ) | 0.5 | 0.449 | 0.448 | 0.692 |
| HateXplain (macro-F 1 ) | 0.5 | 0.604 | 0.666 | 0.687 |
| GSM8K (accuracy) | 0.06 | 0.918 | 0.900 | 0.928 |
| AIME/HMMT (Avg@12) | 0.05 | 34.2 | 41.9 | 39.8 |
| System | Macro-F 1 | F 1 BERT ‡ |
| Arabic , same test split | ||
| Llama-3.1-8B (base) 13 | 0.588 | 0.507 |
| Llama-3.1-8B (FT) 13 | 0.760 | 0.706 |
| Mt-Sft (ours; five tasks, two languages) | 0.763 | 0.664 |
| English , original PropXplain test set | ||
| Llama-3.1-8B (base) 13 | 0.562 | 0.596 |
| System | AR | EN |
| GPT-4, zero-shot 12 | 0.117 | 0.111 ∗ |
| Task-specific SFT (ours) | 0.421 | 0.255 |
| Mt-Sft (ours) | 0.411 | 0.241 |
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Resource | Lang. | Bin. | Tech. | Span | NLE |
| Da San Martino et al. 8 | EN | ✓ | 18 | ✓ | – |
| SemEval-2020 7 | EN | – | 14 | ✓ | – |
| SemEval-2023 21 | 9L | – | 23 | – | – |
| ArPro 12 | AR | ✓ | 23 | ✓ | – |
| SemEval-2024 9 | 4L | ✓ | 22 | – | – |
| PropXplain 13 | AR/EN | ✓ | – | – | ✓ |
| Lang. | Text | Tech. | Span | Multi-T | Multi-S |
| AR | 32.6 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 53.3 | 70.7 |
| EN | 23.8 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 24.9 | 30.6 |
| Coarse category | Fine-grained techniques |
| Manipulative Wording | Loaded Language, Exaggeration–Minimisation, Obfuscation–Vagueness–Confusion, Repetition |
| Reputation | Name Calling–Labeling, Questioning the Reputation, Doubt, Guilt by Association, Appeal to Hypocrisy |
| Justification | Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Fear–Prejudice, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Values, Flag Waving |
| Simplification | Causal Oversimplification, Consequential Oversimplification, False Dilemma–No Choice |
| Call | Slogans, Conversation Killer, Appeal to Time |
| Distraction | Red Herring, Straw Man, Whataboutism |
| Parameter | Value |
| Fine-tuning (identical for every regime) | |
| Backbone | Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct |
| Adapter | LoRA , |
| Learning rate | , warmup ratio 0.05 |
| Epochs / batch | 4 / 4 per device (4 GPUs) |
| Max sequence length | 4,096 |
| Arabic | English | |||||
| System | tag | occ | BIO | tag | occ | BIO |
| Whole sentence as span | 0.082 | 0.082 | 0.082 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.038 |
| AraBERT-v2 / BERT-base | – | – | 0.249 | – | – | 0.227 |
| Qwen2.5-7B zero-shot | 0.058 | 0.093 | – | 0.087 | 0.108 | – |
| Qwen2.5-7B ICL, | 0.128 | 0.200 | – | 0.142 | 0.122 | – |
| GPT-5 (CoT) | – | 0.218 | – | – | 0.180 | – |
| Configuration | Bin | Coa | Tech | S-tag | S-occ |
| Arabic | |||||
| Random, | 0.598 | 0.483 | 0.265 | 0.065 | 0.162 |
| BGE-M3 cross, | 0.622 | 0.501 | 0.268 | 0.051 | 0.107 |
| BGE-M3 same, | 0.613 | 0.512 | 0.286 | 0.085 | 0.170 |
| BGE-M3 same, | 0.688 | 0.536 | 0.349 | 0.114 | 0.190 |
| BGE-M3 same, | 0.669 | 0.550 | 0.376 | 0.128 | 0.200 |
| Arabic test | English test | |||||||||
| Training | Bin | Coa | Tech | S-tag | S-occ | Bin | Coa | Tech | S-tag | S-occ |
| none (zero-shot) | 0.439 | 0.437 | 0.238 | 0.058 | 0.093 | 0.683 | 0.290 | 0.125 | 0.087 | 0.108 |
| AR, all five tasks | 0.767 | 0.666 | 0.560 | 0.408 | 0.364 | 0.607 | 0.361 | 0.272 | 0.198 | 0.177 |
| EN, all five tasks | 0.400 | 0.061 | 0.047 | 0.004 | 0.041 | 0.712 | 0.355 | 0.268 | 0.139 | 0.203 |
| AR+EN, all five tasks | 0.763 | 0.682 | 0.575 | 0.411 | 0.362 | 0.735 | 0.410 | 0.272 | 0.189 | 0.241 |
| AR, binary only | 0.754 | 0.564 | 0.254 | 0.177 | 0.203 | 0.638 | 0.259 | 0.084 | 0.108 | 0.106 |
| Arabic test | English test | |||||||||
| System | Bin | Coa | Tech | S-tag | S-occ | Bin | Coa | Tech | S-tag | S-occ |
| No learning | ||||||||||
| Majority label | 0.380 | 0.558 | 0.466 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.419 | 0.196 | 0.162 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Random, fair coin | 0.499 | 0.244 | 0.093 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.470 | 0.101 | 0.031 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Whole sentence as span | – | – | – | 0.082 | 0.082 | – | – | – | 0.038 | 0.038 |
| Zero-shot, open weights (one prompt per task) | ||||||||||
| BERTScore | BLEU | METEOR | ||||
| System | AR | EN | AR | EN | AR | EN |
| Zero-shot | 0.381 | 0.657 | 0.002 | 0.035 | 0.024 | 0.212 |
| ICL, | 0.626 | 0.672 | 0.057 | 0.050 | 0.205 | 0.254 |
| SFT (same lang.) | 0.663 | 0.718 | 0.102 | 0.103 | 0.254 | 0.327 |
| Arabic | English | |||
| Technique | Sup. | F 1 | Sup. | F 1 |
| Loaded Language | 675 | 0.798 | 441 | 0.440 |
| Name Calling–Labeling | 206 | 0.562 | 291 | 0.291 |
| Exaggeration–Minimisation | 159 | 0.272 | 106 | 0.053 |
| Questioning the Reputation | 99 | 0.521 | 73 | 0.115 |
| Causal Oversimplification | 58 | 0.033 | 40 | 0.000 |
| Init | Configuration | Bin | AVG |
| Qwen2.5 (ZS 0.561/0.256) | think, hard | 0.519 | 0.253 |
| think, no clip | 0.514 | 0.245 | |
| no-think, hard | 0.574 | 0.257 | |
| no-think, no clip | 0.556 | 0.277 | |
| no-think, no clip, | 0.623 | 0.288 | |
| think, no clip, | 0.465 | 0.232 |
| Teacher context | Qwen2.5-7B | Mt-Sft |
| none (= student) | 42.0 | 70.7 |
| full gold block | 93.7 | 94.3 |
| label lines only | 98.3 | 92.7 |
| explanation only | 71.0 | 83.0 |
| mismatched block | 20.3 | 53.0 |
| copies the mismatched label | 73.0 | 38.7 |
| Comparison (binary task) | |||
| Llama-3.1-8B vs. GPT-5 CoT (AR) | 251 | 197 | 0.012 |
| Qwen2.5-7B vs. GPT-5 CoT (EN) | 746 | 417 | 0.001 |
| Mt-Sft vs. best prompted (AR) | 242 | 116 | 0.001 |
| Mt-Sft vs. best prompted (EN) | 396 | 225 | 0.001 |
| Mt-Sft vs. zero-shot (AR) | 579 | 179 | 0.001 |
| ICL retrieved vs. random, (AR) | 298 | 151 | 0.001 |