Author-Informed Stance Detection: A Dataset and Findings
Organizations: Faculty of Computer & Information Science, University of Haifa
Abstract
Stance detection in social media is challenging, as interpreting a text often requires understanding the author's perspective. We re-frame political stance detection as an author-informed text understanding task, where it is desired to infer both the author's political leaning and their stance towards the target from the text. We first show that human annotators struggle to infer authors' political leanings and stances from individual tweets, and that pretrained large language models (LLMs) perform below human level in this setting. We then demonstrate that author context improves stance detection for both humans and LLMs, with particularly pronounced benefits for tweets perceived as sarcastic. Through extensive experiments, we further show that LLMs can be effectively fine-tuned to predict authors' political affiliations, and that author-informed fine-tuning yields better stance detection performance than standard fine-tuning. This approach not only surpasses human performance but also improves generalization across datasets. To support further research on author-informed political stance detection, we release a large dataset of stance-labeled tweets enriched with author-context information.
Figures & tables
| CAMP | P-Stance | Elec’20 | ||
| Size | 595 | 205 | 295 | |
| Author | Democrat | 46% | 71% | 73% |
| Republican | 54% | 29% | 27% | |
| Stance: | Favor: Own | 41% | 26% | 37% |
| Target | Against: Other | 29% | 64% | 48% |
| Against: Own | 19% | 10% | 15% |
| (i) “Dark Biden does it again!" {Dem; favor; Surely} |
|---|
| (ii) " Biden doesn’t have political rallys, he doesn’t have worshippers." {Dem; Favor; No} |
| (iii) "Philly needs to elect more democrats . That should fix things." {Rep; Against; Surely} |
| (iv) " Democrats do indeed deliver. All the wrong things. <URL>" {Dem; Against; Surely} |
| (v) "Once again, empty promises from a Republican . Way too many weak men on the right to ever effect change." {Rep; Against; No} |
| Affiliation | Stance | Informed | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human | 0.669 | 0.626 | 0.736 |
| Predict-by-user | 0.682 | ||
| Pre-trained LLMs | |||
| Mistral-7B | 0.639 | 0.519 | 0.550 |
| ChatGPT-4o | 0.597 | 0.527 | 0.579 |
| Llama3-8B | 0.479 | 0.475 | 0.522 |
| Pretrained | Fine-tuned | Informed | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elections’20 | |||
| Mistral-7B | 0.601 | 0.351 | 0.752 |
| ChatGPT-4o | 0.662 | 0.499 | 0.875 |
| P-Stance | |||
| Mistral | 0.815 | 0.726 | 0.752 |
| ChatGPT-4o | 0.766 | 0.836 | 0.821 |
| No | Possibly | Surely | |
| Human | 0.709 | 0.615 | 0.616 |
| Pre-trained | |||
| Mistral | 0.709 | 0.558 | 0.550 |
| ChatGPT | 0.676 | 0.558 | 0.498 |
| Fine-tuned | |||
| Mistral | 0.845 | 0.731 | 0.752 |
| No | Possibly | Surely | |
| Human | 0.66 / 0.79 ↑ | 0.60 / 0.67 ↑ | 0.61 / 0.75 ↑ |
| Pre-trained | |||
| Mistral | 0.63 / 0.64 | 0.44 / 0.44 | 0.45 / 0.54 ↑ |
| ChatGPT | 0.64 / 0.68 ↑ | 0.46 / 0.49 ↑ | 0.48 / 0.58 ↑ |
| Fine-tuned | |||
| Mistral | 0.67 / 0.74 ↑ | 0.61 / 0.73 ↑ | 0.71 / 0.78 ↑ |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Test-all | Test-conflict | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| User | Stance | Target | # | Ratio | # | Ratio |
| Dem | Favor | Dem | 95 | 16.5% | 87 | 24.0% |
| Neutral | 15 | 2.6% | 12 | 3.3% | ||
| Against | 53 | 9.2% | 51 | 14.0% | ||
| Dem | Favor | Rep | 4 | 0.7% | 2 | 0.6% |
| Neutral | 8 | 1.4% | 1 | 0.3% | ||
| Democrat | Republican | Within-dataset | Cross-dataset: Macro-F1 | |||||||||
| Prec. | Recall | F1 | Prec. | Recall | F1 | Macro-F1 | Elections’20 | P-Stance’20 | ||||
| Human | 0.598 | 0.852 | 0.703 | 0.809 | 0.522 | 0.634 | 0.669 | - | - | |||
| Pre-trained LLMs | ||||||||||||
| Mistral-7B | 0.631 | 0.542 | 0.583 | 0.658 | 0.735 | 0.695 | 0.639 | 0.817 | 0.679 | |||
| Llama3-8B | 0.776 | 0.140 | 0.238 | 0.574 | 0.966 | 0.720 | 0.479 | 0.526 | 0.487 | |||
| Gemma-7B | 0.525 | 0.343 | 0.415 | 0.575 | 0.742 | 0.648 | 0.532 | 0.742 | 0.659 | |||
| Self-critical | Self-support | Cross-critical | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| # examples | 110 | 202 | 129 | |
| ChatGPT | Fine-tuned, author-informed | 0.612 | 0.820 | 0.839 |
| Fine-tuned, textual | 0.651 | 0.818 | 0.826 | |
| Pre-trained | 0.560 | 0.352 | 0.805 | |
| Mistral | Fine-tuned, author-informed | 0.588 | 0.789 | 0.845 |
| Fine-tuned, textual | 0.573 | 0.773 | 0.748 |
Stance Detection
Stance detection identifies whether people support, oppose, or remain neutral toward a target, claim, or position in text and conversation.
See all 37 papers