Not All or None: Dynamic Construction of Target-aware Memory Graph for Conversational Stance Detection
Authors: Yifan Xiang, Bin Liang, Yuqi Huang, Ruifeng Xu, Kam-Fai Wong
Organizations: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · MoE Key Laboratory of High Confidence Software Technologies, China · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China · Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China
Stance detection is crucial for understanding the underlying attitude of an expression towards a target. Conversational stance detection is a more challenging stance detection task in real-world social media scenarios, as it involves detecting the user's stance by leveraging the target-related historical statements across conversational sessions. In this paper, we propose target-aware Memory Graph TamGraph, a novel method that dynamically leverages target-related statements for conversational stance detection. Instead of considering all preceding historical conversations or using no prior conversation information for stance detection, our TamGraph employs a stepwise, entropy-guided backtracking mechanism to selectively activate memory from historical conversations and dynamically constructs a target-aware graph to model the stance relations among utterances. This allows the exploitation of target-related information from the conversation history for stance detection while preventing the introduction of noise. Experimental results on both English and Chinese benchmarks demonstrate that our TamGraph substantially improves LLM performance on conversational stance detection.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The comparison between our method and other prompting baselines.
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
ZS-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
Overall
Qwen2.5-3B (single)
47.03/42.96
47.22/43.78
46.11/46.77
31.39/30.02
48.84 /34.43
44.66/42.88
33.55/25.53
Qwen2.5-3B (multi)
48.69 /43.80
37.41/35.26
41.74/40.98
34.31/ 34.69
38.15/28.49
40.19/39.13
31.11/20.77
Qwen2.5-3B (CoT)
49.44 / 49.29
49.63 / 44.15
49.22 / 48.32
42.58 / 43.29
46.70 / 37.49
47.62 / 45.59
35.41 / 33.91
Qwen2.5-3B (Ours)
46.09/ 45.88
62.22 / 54.62
64.80 / 61.00
45.50 /33.14
56.51 / 43.16
54.66 / 50.74
39.51 / 34.68
Qwen2.5-7B (single)
44.98/42.32
70.91 / 58.24
64.17 /57.37
45.74/31.76
66.67/51.15
58.58/51.32
39.43/28.53
Table 1: Comparison of single-turn, multi-turn, CoT, and our method on MT-CSD and ZS-CSD. On ZS-CSD, we exclude Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct due to its limited native support for Chinese. For each model block and each column, the best (second-best) value for accuracy and macro F1 is shown in bold ( underline ).
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
Overall
Qwen2.5-3B (BM25, q=target)
45.35 /40.26
44.26/38.63
47.98/49.16
36.01/32.37
49.55/35.58
44.83/41.51
Qwen2.5-3B (BM25, q=utterance)
44.98/ 40.42
49.81 / 42.94
52.96 / 52.91
39.90 / 34.00
51.34 / 37.06
47.79 / 44.17
Qwen2.5-3B (BM25, q=u+t)
43.87/39.08
48.15/40.27
51.40/51.80
37.71/33.70
49.38/35.56
46.10/42.65
Qwen2.5-3B (Ours)
46.09 / 45.88
62.22 / 54.62
64.80 / 61.00
45.50 / 33.14
56.51 / 43.16
54.66 / 50.74
Qwen2.5-7B (BM25, q=target)
46.65 / 45.95
63.89/56.26
63.86 / 60.85
49.15 / 41.28
66.67/47.93
58.08/54.36
Table 2: Detailed results of BM25 retrieval baselines with different query modes on MT-CSD for five models, compared with our method. For each model block, we report three query variants and our method.
Figure 2: The comparison between the performance of our method on Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct and Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 and GPT-4o-mini. The detailed results are presented in Table 12 in the Appendix.
Figure 3: Ablation studies on the entropy threshold vs. performance across five models. The horizontal axis denotes the entropy threshold, and the vertical axis shows the overall weighted accuracy and macro F1.
Figure 4: Ablation studies on the entropy threshold vs. token usage across five models. The horizontal axis denotes the entropy threshold, and the vertical axis shows the average number of token usage per sample.
Figure 5: The comparison between the performance of our method and the “w/o entropy threshold”.
Figure 6: Qualitative example of our method and CoT baseline.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Label
Proportion
Precision
Recall
F1
MT-CSD
favor
19.65%
52.37
33.69
41.00
MT-CSD
against
30.54%
53.04
60.58
56.56
MT-CSD
none
49.81%
62.84
66.20
64.47
ZS-CSD
favor
34.87%
56.60
11.54
19.17
ZS-CSD
against
29.06%
35.68
43.81
39.33
ZS-CSD
none
36.07%
45.70
72.48
56.05
Appendix
Table 3: Pooled per-label performance of TamGraph across the evaluated model backbones.
Dataset
# Models
CoT
TamGraph
Speedup
MT-CSD
5
∼ 33.0
∼ 27.0
1.22 ×
ZS-CSD
4
∼ 29.0
∼ 24.0
1.21 ×
Overall
–
∼ 31.0
∼ 25.5
1.22 ×
Appendix
Table 4: Dataset-level end-to-end latency in seconds per example. The overall row averages the two dataset-level results.
Dataset / Target
# Instances
Avg. Turns
Irrelevant Utterances
Irrelevant History Turns
MT-CSD / Biden
411
4.79
60.75%
54.86%
MT-CSD / Bitcoin
538
4.65
27.64%
25.69%
MT-CSD / SpaceX
321
4.52
17.03%
15.15%
MT-CSD / Tesla
540
4.86
22.18%
18.80%
MT-CSD / Trump
561
4.91
24.69%
22.44%
MT-CSD Overall
2,371
4.77
30.04%
27.02%
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset-level analysis of target-irrelevant conversational content. History turns exclude the final utterance whose stance is evaluated.
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
Overall
Qwen2.5-3B (w/o entropy threshold)
45.35/45.48
52.59/48.09
58.26/56.14
45.26/ 39.97
49.55/39.29
49.73/47.97
Qwen2.5-3B (Ours)
46.09 / 45.88
62.22 / 54.62
64.80 / 61.00
45.50 /33.14
56.51 / 43.16
54.66 / 50.74
Qwen2.5-7B (w/o entropy threshold)
48.33 / 48.52
60.93/55.26
63.86/60.13
47.93/ 40.45
64.35/50.94
57.02/55.23
Qwen2.5-7B (Ours)
43.68/41.06
72.22 / 70.75
66.98 / 66.79
48.18 /37.92
70.05 / 70.14
60.35 / 57.68
Qwen2.5-14B (w/o entropy threshold)
58.18 / 57.16
58.33/54.69
61.37/59.53
44.28/ 43.58
55.26/42.24
55.55/55.32
Appendix
Table 6: Detailed results of ablation study on the “w/o entropy threshold” on MT-CSD for five models and the comparison with our method. For each group, the best value for accuracy and macro F1 is shown in bold.
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
Overall
Qwen2.5-3B (random turn selection)
46.84 / 46.82
55.56/50.64
57.01/54.90
43.55/ 36.29
49.73/39.10
50.32/48.15
Qwen2.5-3B (Ours)
46.09/45.88
62.22 / 54.62
64.80 / 61.00
45.50 /33.14
56.51 / 43.16
54.66 / 50.74
Qwen2.5-7B (random turn selection)
45.17 / 45.41
65.00/58.54
64.80/60.70
47.45/ 38.44
63.46/49.35
57.06/54.53
Qwen2.5-7B (Ours)
43.68/41.06
72.22 / 70.75
66.98 / 66.79
48.18 /37.92
70.05 / 70.14
60.35 / 57.68
Qwen2.5-14B (random turn selection)
52.79 / 52.26
60.00/56.62
60.44/58.33
46.23/ 42.39
57.58/44.08
55.46/55.02
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed results of ablation study on the “random turn selection” on MT-CSD for five models and the comparison with our method. For each group, the best value for accuracy and macro F1 is shown in bold.
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
Overall
Qwen2.5-3B
44.80/44.73
60.37/54.30
63.86/61.16
46.72/34.94
55.44/42.93
53.77/50.55
Qwen2.5-7B
44.61/42.98
72.78/62.50
69.16/62.97
47.20/33.60
70.05/55.33
60.82/54.94
Qwen2.5-14B
50.56/50.14
71.67/66.47
64.49/62.28
48.18/39.29
62.21/46.86
59.60/57.25
Qwen3-4B-2507
46.65/46.73
68.89/61.26
65.11/60.62
48.91/34.88
69.16/52.76
59.93/56.33
Llama-3.1-8B
50.93/49.26
62.96/58.93
53.58/52.78
45.01/38.87
59.36/46.85
55.00/53.96
Appendix
Table 8: Detailed results of ablation study on the entropy threshold ( entropy=0.0 ) on MT-CSD for five models.
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
Overall
Qwen2.5-3B
44.42/44.30
60.74/53.97
62.62/59.28
46.47/34.18
56.51/43.51
53.82/50.23
Qwen2.5-7B
43.31/41.05
72.41/60.80
67.91/60.09
48.18/32.39
70.94/52.37
60.65/53.35
Qwen2.5-14B
46.10/45.87
73.52/64.53
68.22/64.64
45.74/33.53
67.74/53.73
60.40/56.66
Qwen3-4B-2507
45.91/45.77
70.56/59.83
66.98/60.30
46.23/31.10
69.70/50.93
60.06/54.89
Llama-3.1-8B
50.74/49.09
63.15/59.49
53.58/52.61
43.80/37.65
59.71/47.32
54.87/53.71
Appendix
Table 9: Detailed results of ablation study on the entropy threshold ( entropy=0.2 ) on MT-CSD for five models.
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
Overall
Qwen2.5-3B
43.87/43.74
61.11/54.23
63.24/59.23
46.23/33.93
55.97/42.95
53.69/49.97
Qwen2.5-7B
43.31/40.79
71.67/59.64
67.91/59.72
47.93/31.71
71.30/52.73
60.52/52.85
Qwen2.5-14B
46.65/46.35
73.33/63.90
68.85/65.17
46.47/33.75
67.74/51.42
60.69/56.69
Qwen3-4B-2507
45.54/45.46
70.37/59.82
66.98/60.12
46.47/31.24
69.34/50.67
59.89/54.72
Llama-3.1-8B
51.12/49.55
62.41/58.28
53.27/52.36
43.07/37.02
59.54/47.66
54.58/53.47
Appendix
Table 10: Detailed results of ablation study on the entropy threshold ( entropy=0.4 ) on MT-CSD for five models.
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
Overall
Qwen2.5-3B
45.17/45.05
62.78/55.08
64.49/60.19
44.53/33.08
58.11/44.64
54.74/50.96
Qwen2.5-7B
43.31/40.33
70.93/58.52
66.36/57.45
47.69/30.73
71.30/52.68
60.10/51.59
Qwen2.5-14B
47.58/47.02
73.15/63.44
71.34/66.95
46.96/33.67
67.38/51.63
61.20/56.92
Qwen3-4B-2507
46.28/46.04
68.89/58.71
67.60/60.52
46.23/31.58
68.63/50.19
59.60/54.43
Llama-3.1-8B
51.30/49.53
60.00/55.65
54.83/53.92
41.12/35.81
58.29/44.75
53.65/52.35
Appendix
Table 11: Detailed results of ablation study on the entropy threshold ( entropy=0.8 ) on MT-CSD for five models.
Model
MT-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
ZS-CSD (acc. / F1 in %)
Bitcoin
Tesla
SpaceX
Biden
Trump
GPT-4o-mini (single)
49.07/48.33
71.48/67.73
61.99/59.38
44.28/34.61
66.49/53.72
43.65/38.94
GPT-4o-mini (multi)
53.53/53.48
69.26/62.61
66.67/64.86
48.18/39.96
68.81/51.96
45.99/42.70
Appendix
Table 12: The detailed results of GPT-4o-mini under single-turn and multi-turn inputs on MT-CSD and ZS-CSD.
Figure 7: Additional qualitative example of our method and CoT baseline. The CoT baseline provides garbled text in some cases.
Figure 8: Additional qualitative example of our method and CoT baseline.
Table 13: Prompt of single-turn input stance detection evaluation.
Table 14: Prompt of multi-turn input stance detection evaluation.
Table 15: Prompt of CoT baseline stance detection evaluation.
Table 16: Prompt of Relevance Detection.
Table 17: Prompt of Target-related Proposition Extraction.
Table 18: Prompt of Relation Induction.
Table 19: Prompt of Natural Language Relation Rephraser.
Stance detection on social media is challenging due to short, noisy, and context-dependent language. While large language models (LLMs) show zero-shot generalization, they are typically prompted without contextual information, which limits their ability to interpret ambiguous posts. In this work, we systematically investigate the impact of incorporating real-world (e.g., user biographies), derived (e.g., political party), and LLM-generated (e.g., target descriptions) contextual features into zero-shot prompting for stance detection on Twitter. Our evaluation spans four benchmark datasets, including a new high-quality German Twitter stance dataset. Across multiple LLMs, we find that integrating contextual information improves performance, but only under specific conditions. LLM-generated target descriptions consistently enhance accuracy, while other user metadata has mixed or even detrimental effects. Notably, we show that the inclusion of other tweets by the same user, often beneficial in supervised learning, can impair performance due to input noise. Our qualitative analysis reveals that LLMs struggle to distinguish task-specific useful information from irrelevant context. Our findings highlight both the promise and challenges of prompting with context information in noisy real-world settings. We publish code and data at this page.
Tilman Beck, Shakib Yazdani, Simon Kruschinski +2
Institute of Intensive Care, University Hospital of Zurich and University of Zurich · Institute of Computer Science, University of Goettingen · GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences +2
StanceEval 2026 is the second edition of the StanceEval shared task series on stance detection in Arabic social media text. Stance detection aims to identify a writer's stance toward a given topic. Given a tweet and a target, participating systems must determine whether the writer's stance is Favor, Against, or None. This edition focuses on cross-target generalization across two distinct evaluation tracks: Track 1 evaluates thematically related cross-target transfer (testing on Women Driving, related to Women Empowerment from training data), while Track 2 evaluates cross-domain transfer to completely unseen targets (E-Cars and Trimester System). The shared task attracted 80 registered teams from 12 countries. During the evaluation phase, 30 unique teams submitted entries, with 21 teams officially ranked in Track 1 and 13 in Track 2 following validation filtering, and 20 teams submitting system-description papers. Participating teams employed diverse methodologies, including fine-tuned pretrained language models, prompt-based and retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs), fine-tuned LLMs, and hybrid cascades. Top systems achieved impressive Favg2 scores of 0.8994 on Track 1 and 0.9400 on Track 2, substantially outperforming the strongest baselines (0.7366 and 0.7475, respectively), where Favg2 denotes the macro-averaged F1 score over the Favor and Against classes. Counterintuitively, performance on the unseen targets was higher than on the related target, a disparity could be driven by extreme target polarization, class imbalance, and dialectal or sarcastic nuance across topics.
Rasha Albalawi, Nuha Albadi, Hamzah Luqman +6
Information and Computer Science Department, KFUPM, Saudi Arabia · SDAIA–KFUPM Joint Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Saudi Arabia · HUMAIN, Saudi Arabia
Actor-level stance detection aims to determine an author expressed position toward specific geopolitical actors mentioned or implicated in a text. Although transformer-based models have achieved relatively good performance in stance classification, they typically rely on unified representations that may not sufficiently capture heterogeneous linguistic signals, such as contrastive discourse structures, framing cues, and salient lexical indicators. This motivates the need for adaptive architectures that explicitly model diverse stance-expressive patterns. In this paper, we propose StanceMoE, a context-enhanced Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture built upon a fine-tuned BERT encoder for actor-level stance detection. Our model integrates six expert modules designed to capture complementary linguistic signals, including global semantic orientation, salient lexical cues, clause-level focus, phrase-level patterns, framing indicators, and contrast-driven discourse shifts. A context-aware gating mechanism dynamically weights expert contributions, enabling adaptive routing based on input characteristics. Experiments are conducted on the StanceNakba 2026 Subtask A dataset, comprising 1,401 annotated English texts where the target actor is implicit in the text. StanceMoE achieves a macro-F1 score of 94.26%, outperforming traditional baselines, and alternative BERT-based variants.
Abdullah Al Shafi, Md. Milon Islam, Sk. Imran Hossain +1
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology