Large Language Model-Based Text Classification

Propagandistic content increasingly circulates through online news and social media, where readers often encounter it with limited scrutiny, highlighting the need for reliable and fine-grained detection. This paper introduces Propasafe-Hybrid, a sentence-level system that integrates a fine-tuned transformer classifier with LLM-based technique classification to identify, label, and explain specific propaganda strategies. The pipeline generates actionable outputs, including highlighted sentences, technique assignments, and concise rationales, so users can immediately understand why a sentence was flagged and how each label was determined. To control inference cost, Propasafe-Hybrid employs a cost-aware pre-filtering stage that forwards only high-likelihood sentences to LLMs, reducing token usage while preserving the underlying decision logic. Together, these design choices enhance the explainability, efficiency, and practical usability of sentence-level propaganda detection in real-world news environments.

Language models make it easy to build classifiers by simply prompting a model with the sample to classify. However, their predictions are neither deterministic nor uniformly reliable across samples. How can we combine predictions from different models to improve reliability? We view LLM classifiers as noisy measurement instruments of an underlying target label. Our goal is to maximize average classification accuracy at a given average query cost. To this end, we introduce circuits that organize LLM classifiers into an adaptive sequence of queries and decisions. We then characterize the optimal circuit, obtain the fundamental limits of achievable accuracy, and provide practical insights on realizing the optimal circuit. Across seven classification tasks spanning safety, health, political science, human preference, agent evaluation, decision-making and reasoning, our method improves the cost-accuracy frontier over routing and cascading baselines.

Flagship large language models (LLMs) offer rich general knowledge and strong reasoning capabilities, but their high inference cost and latency limit their use for large-scale data labeling. We study zero-shot text classification with semantically meaningful labels and task descriptions, without task-specific labeled examples or classifier feedback. We propose SLKR (Semantic Label Knowledge Retrieval), a label-centric retrieval-augmented generation framework that separates offline knowledge construction from lightweight online inference. Offline, a flagship LLM independently generates label definitions, retrieval keywords, and boundary rules for potentially confusable label pairs, forming a reusable label-knowledge store. Because this construction operates over the label space rather than the input corpus, its one-time flagship cost can be amortized across large-scale inference. Online, hybrid semantic and lexical retrieval first identifies the top-$K$ candidate labels and then selects up to $M$ input-relevant boundary rules connecting candidate-label pairs. A lightweight LLM performs the final classification in a single call using the retrieved definitions and rules. Across three public benchmarks and a real-world multilingual book-classification dataset, SLKR achieves the best results on all four datasets with Qwen3.5-4B and on three of four with Ministral-3-3B, while using compact input contexts and no task-specific labeled examples. Boundary ablations further show that retrieving a small set of input-relevant rules preserves performance close to using all boundaries with substantially less context, supporting efficient reuse of flagship-generated label knowledge for lightweight classification.

AI-text detectors are already applied to Kazakh writing, yet no study reports how often publicly available detectors flag Kazakh text whose human authorship is dated before ChatGPT. We present AINA-KK: 3,811 human passages from encyclopedic, news, web and educational pages that provably existed before ChatGPT, and 5,597 machine and gray-zone passages from 9 generators, including the Kazakh-built KazLLM and Sherkala, with script and length stress tests. Five English-trained detectors from the Hugging Face Hub flag up to 81.4% of human passages and 79.6% of published student essays; recalibrated, they catch at most 1.3% of machine text. Calibrated zero-shot detectors catch at most 50.3% of machine text from in-distribution generators. Fine-tuned encoders rank text almost perfectly, but mDeBERTa at its default threshold flags 24.4% of 50-word human excerpts, partly because machine outputs are shorter than human text; calibrated, it catches only 47.1% of KazLLM and 62.7% of Sherkala passages. Without script handling, machine-transliterated Latin-2021 text defeats every detector. Fixes that need no new data (calibration, script canonicalization, script-augmented and length-matched training, and an OR with a zero-shot scorer) form AINA-KK-Det. On test it flags 0.9% of human passages (95% CI 0.4-2.7; 1.5% on development data) and catches 85.2% of machine text from known generators, 92.9% from two unseen Gemini-family Gemma-4 models and 61.3% from the Kazakh-built ones; its configuration was chosen with test results in view. We release the data, code and detector at https://github.com/ozxmn/aina-kk.

Large-scale multi-label text classification assigns a small subset of relevant labels to each document from a vocabulary containing thousands or tens of thousands of candidate labels. Although pretrained language models have improved semantic text representations, most representation-based approaches center their prediction pipelines on a primary encoder or combine auxiliary features within a single ranker. The complementarity between heterogeneous language models therefore remains insufficiently explored. We propose DualMLC, a dual-branch framework that processes the same document through an autoregressive decoder-only language model and a bidirectional encoder. Each branch maintains its own representation pathway and independently estimates relevance scores over the shared label space. DualMLC combines the two score vectors through late logit fusion, allowing shared evidence to reinforce relevant labels and branch-specific evidence to compensate for limitations in the other branch's representation. DualMLC achieves state-of-the-art results on three widely used large-scale multi-label text classification benchmarks. Ablation results further confirm that integrating the heterogeneous predictors produces stronger rankings than either branch alone. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/huiyegit/DualMLC.

Large language models (LLMs) struggle to classify text into taxonomies with many semantically similar labels, as the distinctions are domain-specific and not captured by pre-training. To handle large label spaces, a common approach retrieves top-$K$ candidate labels by embedding similarity and prompt the LLM to choose among them. However, top-$K$ retrieval reduces the number of candidates but does not help the model tell similar ones apart. When two similar labels both appear as candidates, the model lacks the signal to choose correctly between them. We propose a framework that (1) identifies which label pairs the model struggles to distinguish, (2) expands the candidate set to include confusable labels, and (3) generates targeted rules to differentiate between similar candidates. The framework requires no fine-tuning, and the generated rules transfer to smaller, cheaper models. On three benchmarks (WOS, Flipkart, LEDGAR), our approach improves Macro F1 by up to 10.0pp over retrieval baselines, with smaller models (2B--20B) gaining up to 11.5pp via cross-model transfer.

We present HelaBERT, a family of two BERT-based masked language models pre-trained from scratch on approximately 1 billion tokens of Sinhala text sourced from MADLAD-400, CulturaX, and a custom corpus comprising news articles, Sinhala Wikipedia, and web crawl data. HelaBERT-Small (~23.3M parameters, 6 layers) and HelaBERT-Large (~110M parameters, 12 layers) both use a SentencePiece Unigram tokenizer (vocabulary size 32,000) tailored to Sinhala's agglutinative morphology and complex script. We evaluate both models on four downstream Sinhala text classification tasks: news category classification, news source classification, sentiment analysis, and writing style classification, using 5 independent seed runs with stratified 80/20 train/test splits. We additionally propose a dual pooling classification head and evaluate it systematically across all four tasks, finding consistent improvements on sentiment analysis and a moderate gain on news category classification for HelaBERT-Small, while the standard [CLS]-linear head remains competitive on news source classification, a headline-level task with short average input length. We release both models to support further research in Sinhala NLP.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate synthetic training data for text classification, but the quality of generated samples is heterogeneous: some fall in correct class regions of the embedding space while others land in peripheral or cross-class zones. We propose a geometric filtering framework that evaluates each LLM-generated sample by its Euclidean distance to real class examples in a sentence embedding space, selecting only geometrically consistent candidates. A soft weighting mechanism transforms filter scores into sample weights for classifier training. Evaluated across 13 datasets, 5 classifiers, 10 augmentation methods, and over 6,700 configurations, our method achieves +2.61 percentage points (pp) over SMOTE ($p<0.0001$, Cohen's $d=0.95$, 88.9% win rate). The approach generalizes to named entity recognition (+9.26pp, 100% win rate) without filter modification, and is robust across 5 LLMs from 4 providers. A key finding is that the simplest distance-based filter consistently outperforms complex multi-criteria alternatives.

Reggaeton is one of the most widely consumed music genres in the world, and its lyrics are commonly regarded as highly sexualized. This claim rests mostly on qualitative studies and on small-scale quantitative ones. This paper has two goals. First, we present a reproducible method that uses a large language model to quantify thematic content in song lyrics along several independent dimensions. The method is not restricted to sexual content. Second, we apply it to a corpus of 1,259 songs by 12 reggaeton artists released between 2002 and 2025. The analysis covers four topics: a dataset characterization, a per-artist comparison, an analysis of how the dimensions change over time, and a comparison between our sexual-explicitness score and Spotify's own explicit flag. We release the data collection code, the scoring prompt, and the corpus, so that other researchers can replicate the approach or apply it to their own lyrics datasets.

This study examines whether supervised fine-tuning remains necessary for Turkish sentiment analysis in the era of large language models. We compare classical machine learning methods, fine-tuned pretrained language models, and prompted large language models on a Turkish e-commerce review dataset with negative, neutral, and positive labels. Fine-tuned BERTurk models perform best overall and outperform all prompted large language models in the full three-class task. The neutral class emerges as the main difficulty: while several large language models are much more competitive in binary positive--negative classification, they degrade substantially in the three-class setting by collapsing neutral reviews into polarized categories. The findings suggest that, in realistic Turkish sentiment classification, prompted large language models do not yet match supervised fine-tuning in the zero-shot setting, and that including the neutral class is crucial for robust evaluation.

Worker safety attitudes are key determinants of whether protective practices are applied or bypassed on construction sites. Yet measuring them at scale has remained out of reach. Safety attitudes are multidimensional, vary across topics, and surface most candidly in workers' own conversations. This study created and validated the Construction Safety Attitude Framework (CSAF), which integrates two components: a theory-grounded structure that characterizes safety attitudes along eight dimensions, and an operational codebook for measuring them in worker naturalistic discourse. Applying CSAF to 250 posts and comments from the r/Construction community on Reddit, trained coders reached strong agreement (Krippendorff's α = 0.85). Pairwise lift and conditional probability confirmed that the eight dimensions are related yet distinct. To apply the framework across large volumes of discourse, CSAF was operationalized through a large language model (LLM) classifier. On 450 r/Construction contributions, the classifier reproduced expert human coding (Cohen's \k{appa} = 0.90, precision = 0.98, recall = 0.98), and on 400 contributions from r/Roofing it retained that accuracy after transfer to a different trade community (\k{appa} = 0.89, precision = 0.98, recall = 0.97). A proof-of-value case study then applied the validated classifier to 10,346 contributions from r/Roofing, demonstrating that CSAF can distinguish multidimensional attitudes by safety topic, track how they shift over time, and trace the reasoning behind unfavorable ones. The study therefore provides a theoretically grounded, empirically vetted instrument for examining safety attitudes, offering a basis for targeted interventions that address the attitudes underlying unsafe practices.

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.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have made it increasingly difficult to distinguish human-written text from AI-generated content. Many existing detectors train supervised neural classifiers that achieve strong in-distribution performance but are often opaque and can degrade substantially under distribution shift. We present READER, a reasoning-enhanced AI text detector that outputs both a human/AI label and a structured rationale describing the evidence for its decision. A key component of our approach is READ, a curated supervision set of rationales and verdicts. We fine-tune an LLM on READ to build READER, which reasons before detecting at inference time. Despite having only 1.5B parameters, READER consistently outperforms existing detectors as well as prompted, high-capacity LLM baselines (GPT-5.2, Gemini-3-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.2), which are 100 to 1000 times larger in scale.

AI is transforming life sciences research at unprecedented speed, accelerating discovery across protein structure prediction, genome modeling, and drug development (Jumper et al., 2021; Mak et al., 2024). Yet this rapid advancement, coupled with the open science movement, introduces significant dual-use research concerns that have received limited empirical scrutiny. Here we present the first systematic analysis of dual-use research of concern (DURC) content on open preprint servers. We screened ~52,000 bioRxiv preprints (2024-2025) using a hybrid pipeline of lexical filtering and large language model (LLM) evaluation, scoring metadata across nine DURC, three PEPP, and five governance categories aligned with U.S. and Australia Group oversight frameworks. Our analysis reveals that dual-use-adjacent knowledge is routinely present in openly accessible titles and abstracts, often exceeding established risk thresholds even in studies with legitimate public health objectives. While this mapping captures surface-level information diffusion, it does not measure operational capability, downstream misuse potential, or the substantial technical and biosafety barriers that constrain harmful application. We argue that institutional review processes, funding requirements, and preprint platform policies must evolve to incorporate proactive, metadata-level monitoring without compromising scientific transparency. Ultimately, harmonizing controlled-access mechanisms for high-risk methodologies with open summaries of scientific contributions offers a pragmatic framework for governing AI-accelerated biology at scale.

Large language models are now embedded in everyday writing workflows, making reliable AI-generated text detection important for academic integrity, content moderation, and provenance tracking. In practice, however, a detector must do more than achieve high aggregate AUROC on clean, in-distribution human and AI text: it should remain robust to attacks and adversarial rewrites, transfer to unseen generators and domains, and operate at low false-positive rates (FPR). Most existing detectors optimize a single AI/Human objective, giving the representation little incentive to learn generator, attack, or domain structure once the binary task saturates. We introduce MELD (Multi-Task Equilibrated Learning Detector), a deployable detector for AI-generated text that enriches binary detection with auxiliary supervision. MELD attaches generator-family, attack-type, and source-domain heads to a shared encoder, and balances the four losses with learned homoscedastic uncertainty weights. To improve robustness, an EMA teacher predicts on clean inputs while an attack-augmented student is distilled toward the teacher. MELD further uses a hard-negative pairwise ranking loss to enlarge the score margin between AI-generated texts and the most confusable human texts. At inference, all auxiliary heads are discarded, giving MELD the same interface and cost as a standard detector. On the public RAID leaderboard, MELD is the strongest open-source detector and is competitive with leading commercial models, especially under attack and at low FPR. Across standard held-out benchmarks, MELD matches or outperforms supervised baselines. We further introduce MELD-eval, a held-out evaluation pool built from recent chat models released by four major LLM providers. Without additional finetuning, MELD achieves 99.9% TPR at 1% FPR on MELD-eval, while many baselines degrade sharply.

Numerous metascience studies and other initiatives have begun to monitor the prevalence of open science practices when it is more important to understand the 'downstream' effects or impacts of open science. PLOS and DataSeer have developed a new LLM-based indicator to measure an important effect of open science: the reuse of research data. Our results show a data reuse rate of 43%, which is higher than established bibliometric techniques. We show that data reuse can be measured at scale using LLMs and generative artificial intelligence. The positive effects of research data sharing and reuse may currently be underestimated.

Understanding the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) adoption across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) portfolio is critical for research funding strategy, institutional planning, and health policy. The advent of large language models (LLMs) has fundamentally transformed research landscape analysis, enabling researchers to perform large-scale semantic extraction from thousands of unstructured research documents. In this paper, we illustrate a human-in-the-loop research methodology for LLMs to automatically classify and summarize research descriptions at scale. Using our methodology, we present a comprehensive analysis of 58,746 NIH-funded biomedical research projects from 2025. We show that: (1) AI constitutes 15.9% of the NIH portfolio with a 13.4% funding premium, concentrated in discovery, prediction, and data integration across disease domains; (2) a critical research-to-deployment gap exists, with 79% of AI projects remaining in research/development stages while only 14.7% engage in clinical deployment or implementation; and (3) health disparities research is severely underrepresented at just 5.7% of AI-funded work despite its importance to NIH's equity mission. These findings establish a framework for evidence-based policy interventions to align the NIH AI portfolio with health equity goals and strategic research priorities.

Existing Indonesian sentiment analysis models classify text in isolation, ignoring the topical context that often determines whether a statement is positive, negative, or neutral. We introduce IndoBERT-Sentiment, a context-conditioned sentiment classifier that takes both a topical context and a text as input, producing sentiment predictions grounded in the topic being discussed. Built on IndoBERT Large (335M parameters) and trained on 31,360 context-text pairs labeled across 188 topics, the model achieves an F1 macro of 0.856 and accuracy of 88.1%. In a head-to-head evaluation against three widely used general-purpose Indonesian sentiment models on the same test set, IndoBERT-Sentiment outperforms the best baseline by 35.6 F1 points. We show that context-conditioning, previously demonstrated for relevancy classification, transfers effectively to sentiment analysis and enables the model to correctly classify texts that are systematically misclassified by context-free approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for text classification across the social sciences, yet researchers overwhelmingly classify one text per variable per prompt. Coding 100,000 texts on four variables requires 400,000 API calls. Batching 25 items and stacking all variables into a single prompt reduces this to 4,000 calls, cutting token costs by over 80%. Whether this degrades coding quality is unknown. We tested eight production LLMs from four providers on 3,962 expert-coded tweets across four tasks, varying batch size from 1 to 1,000 items and stacking up to 25 coding dimensions per prompt. Six of eight models maintained accuracy within 2 pp of the single-item baseline through batch sizes of 100. Variable stacking with up to 10 dimensions produced results comparable to single-variable coding, with degradation driven by task complexity rather than prompt length. Within this safe operating range, the measurement error from batching and stacking is smaller than typical inter-coder disagreement in the ground-truth data.

Recent developments in text classification using Large Language Models (LLMs) in the social sciences suggest that costs can be cut significantly, while performance can sometimes rival existing computational methods. However, with a wide variance in performance in current tests, we move to the question of how to maximize performance. In this paper, we focus on prompt context as a possible avenue for increasing accuracy by systematically varying three aspects of prompt engineering: label descriptions, instructional nudges, and few shot examples. Across two different examples, our tests illustrate that a minimal increase in prompt context yields the highest increase in performance, while further increases in context only tend to yield marginal performance increases thereafter. Alarmingly, increasing prompt context sometimes decreases accuracy. Furthermore, our tests suggest substantial heterogeneity across models, tasks, and batch size, underlining the need for individual validation of each LLM coding task rather than reliance on general rules.

Eliciting explicit, step-by-step reasoning traces from large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a dominant paradigm for enhancing model capabilities. Although such reasoning strategies were originally designed for problems requiring explicit multi-step reasoning, they have increasingly been applied to a broad range of NLP tasks. This expansion implicitly assumes that deliberative reasoning uniformly benefits heterogeneous tasks. However, whether such reasoning mechanisms truly benefit classification tasks remains largely underexplored, especially considering their substantial token and time costs. To fill this gap, we introduce TextReasoningBench, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of reasoning strategies for text classification with LLMs. We compare seven reasoning strategies, namely IO, CoT, SC-CoT, ToT, GoT, BoC, and long-CoT across ten LLMs on five text classification datasets. Beyond traditional metrics such as accuracy and macro-F1, we introduce two cost-aware evaluation metrics that quantify the performance gain per reasoning token and the efficiency of performance improvement relative to token cost growth. Experimental results reveal three notable findings: (1) Reasoning does not universally improve classification performance: while moderate strategies such as CoT and SC-CoT yield consistent but limited gains (typically +1% to +3% on big models), more complex methods (e.g., ToT and GoT) often fail to outperform simpler baselines and can even degrade performance, especially on small models; (2) Reasoning is often inefficient: many reasoning strategies increase token consumption by 10$\times$ to 100$\times$ (e.g., SC-CoT and ToT) while providing only marginal performance improvements.

We present an NLP-based study of political propaganda on Moltbook, a Reddit-style platform for AI agents. To enable large-scale analysis, we develop LLM-based classifiers to detect political propaganda, validated against expert annotation (Cohen's $κ$= 0.64-0.74). Using a dataset of 673,127 posts and 879,606 comments, we find that political propaganda accounts for 1% of all posts and 42% of all political content. These posts are concentrated in a small set of communities, with 70% of such posts falling into five of them. 4% of agents produced 51% of these posts. We further find that a minority of these agents repeatedly post highly similar content within and across communities. Despite this, we find limited evidence that comments amplify political propaganda.

This work presents a systematic and in-depth investigation of the utility of large language models as text classifiers for biomedical article classification. The study uses several small and mid-size open source models, as well as selected closed source ones, and is more comprehensive than most prior work with respect to the scope of evaluated configurations: different types of prompts, output processing methods for generating both class and class probability predictions, as well as few-shot example counts and selection methods. The performance of the most successful configurations is compared to that of conventional classification algorithms. The obtained average PR AUC over 15 challenging datasets above 0.4 for zero-shot prompting and nearly 0.5 for few-shot prompting comes close to that of the naïve Bayes classifier (0.5), the random forest algorithm (0.5 with default settings or 0.55 with hyperparameter tuning) and fine-tuned transformer models (0.5). These results confirm the utility of large language models as text classifiers for non-trivial domains and provide practical recommendations of the most promising setups, including in particular using output token probabilities for class probability prediction.

Languages change over time. Computational models can be trained to recognize such changes enabling them to estimate the publication date of texts. Despite recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), their performance on automatic dating of texts, also known as Temporal Text Classification (TTC), has not been explored. This study provides the first systematic evaluation of leading proprietary (Claude 3.5, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5) and open-source (LLaMA 3.2, Gemma 2, Mistral, Nemotron 4) LLMs on TTC using three historical corpora, two in English and one in Portuguese. We test zero-shot and few-shot prompting, and fine-tuning settings. Our results indicate that proprietary models perform well, especially with few-shot prompting. They also indicate that fine-tuning substantially improves open-source models but that they still fail to match the performance delivered by proprietary LLMs.