Discourse

This study highlights the distribution of Standard Arabic (SA; H(igh) variety) and Colloquial Arabic (CA; L(ow) variety) across X and Facebook. 16754 public posts were collected via Python, with 10000 retained as the net dataset. Posts were classified into 7 discourse categories: politics, technology, science, business, culture, fun, and sports. Bivariate analyses, including Chi-square tests and Cramer's V (CV), examined associations among platform, discourse category, and diglossic choice, while binary logistic regression with Platform x Discourse Category interactions tested whether these associations varied across platforms. Findings reveal that there are significant associations between discourse category and diglossic choice on X, chi-square(6, N = 5000) = 600.35, p < .001, CV = .347, and Facebook, chi-square(6, N = 5000) = 1249.52, p < .001, CV = .500. Across platforms, platform was also associated with diglossic choice, chi-square(1, N = 10000) = 262.16, p < .001, CV = .162. Binary logistic regression further shows higher odds of SA use on X than Facebook in the political reference category (OR = 1.31, p = .0028), with significant platform-by-domain interactions for Culture (OR = 2.65), Fun (OR = 6.34), Sports (OR = 26.71), Science (OR = 0.41), and Technology (OR = 0.71). The study concludes that the diglossic use of SA and CA contributes to the growing body of research on digital discourse, unveiling that the digital age reshapes but does not erode diglossic boundaries, giving rise instead to a reconfigured digital diglossia.

Hostile rhetoric toward social groups can normalize exclusion and justify mistreatment, as well as contribute to rising polarization and political violence. Efforts to moderate hostile rhetoric in online speech draw on foundational theories in social and moral psychology, and political science. However, these theories were developed largely in parallel, often propose different and sometimes conflicting accounts of how hostility develops, and have rarely been tested against each other in real discourse. The result is a fragmented understanding of the rhetorical mechanisms of hostility, without a clear sense of how they appear, and relate to each other, in real-world discourse. Using 2.86 million posts from TikTok, Truth Social, and Twitter/X during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we model the mechanisms of six foundational theories of intergroup hostility -- boundary construction, threat construction, scapegoating, negative evaluation, dehumanization, and action orientation -- within a common empirical framework to recover the broader organization of intergroup hostility rhetoric. Structurally, we find that boundary construction and threat construction anchor the system; temporally, we find that these mechanisms tend to follow a regular ordering: boundary construction, derogation, and action orientation tend to appear early; dehumanization and threat construction later; scapegoating latest. Mapping how these theoretical frameworks actually manifest in discourse bridges longstanding divisions across social science traditions and presents computational social science with a clearer empirical foundation for modeling intergroup hostility rhetoric beyond single-label detection.

Health discourse in social media videos often contains densely entangled claims spanning multiple thematic aspects, stances, evidential frames, and rhetorical functions within short conversational spans. Existing approaches largely rely on coarse topic-level, sentiment-based, or stance-oriented representations that do not adequately capture this structure. Our analysis identifies an average of 13.22 atomic claims per minute, motivating richer claim-level discourse representations. We introduce a structured framework for claim-level discourse analysis in dense health narratives. Our framework models discourse through tuples linking atomic claims with thematic aspects, stance, and multidimensional pragmatic discourse attributes. To support this setting, we construct a benchmark spanning four health domains with 1,191 manually annotated claims from 60 videos. Using this framework, we evaluate automated structured discourse analysis under different discourse context settings. Results show that current LLMs achieve strong performance on thematic categorization and stance prediction, but struggle with high-dimensional pragmatic profiling. We also find that different discourse tasks benefit from different forms of contextual reasoning, suggesting that future systems may require task decomposition and specialized inference strategies.

We introduce GenOR-Twin, a neuro-symbolic framework that bridges the translation gap between unstructured operational logs and rigorous mathematical optimization. Our architecture uniquely positions Large Language Models as semantic translators rather than direct solvers, ensuring that the system retains the feasibility guarantees of exact combinatorial methods. { \color{red}We design a dynamic constraint injection mechanism (the runtime translation of qualitative disruption events into formal mathematical constraints) that allows the system to structurally modify the optimization problem's feasibility region in real-time based on qualitative human inputs. The resulting bidirectional coupling---where operational observations update the virtual model state and optimized decisions are reflected back into the Knowledge Graph---satisfies the synchronization requirement of a proper Digital Twin. The framework features an adaptive decision policy} that automatically selects between low-complexity schedule repair and full re-optimization by analyzing the available system slack. Finally, we demonstrate the generalization of this approach across six distinct optimization domains, {\color{red}turning static models into resilient systems that adapt to the operational uncertainty and variability of real-world environments.}

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology is fundamental to customer service automation and large-scale transcription. However, even advanced ASR models exhibit inevitable errors in complex real-world environments such as call center conversations. When privacy restrictions preclude audio access, error correction must rely on text-based post-editing. Existing text-only approaches face significant challenges in low-resource languages, mainly due to a critical scarcity of annotated corpora and tailored correction methodologies. For Korean, this resource gap is particularly pronounced, as existing resources are predominantly designed for ASR training rather than text-based error correction. To address this, we introduce DasanCallDial, the first large-scale Korean benchmark dataset specifically curated for dialogue-level ASR error correction. Derived from genuine call center interactions, it comprises 1,974 dialogues with 115,460 utterances. Leveraging this resource, we propose Detector-Gated Contextual Span Correction (DCSC), a text-only post-editing framework for error-sparse Korean speech recognition transcripts. DCSC combines an encoder-based detector that first performs token-level error detection, followed by a language model-based corrector trained to rectify fine-grained span-level errors. Additionally, we employ dialogue-level context augmentation to enable the model to leverage discourse history for disambiguation. By employing multi-level granularity, our method achieves state-of-the-art performance, effectively overcoming the limitations of general LLMs in low-resource settings.

Algorithmic outputs now populate the digital environments through which contemporary life is organized. The role of law in facilitating and constituting (rather than merely responding to) these processes is gaining increasing traction across scholarly accounts. This inquiry traces the evolution of algorithmic outputs attending to their legal underpinnings and social implications, surfacing the mutations of machine speech. The first mutation redefined speech as data to be queried: search engines transformed the web from a space of information retrieval into an economic regime of algorithmic visibility. The second mutation reframed speech as engagement: social media platforms fused moderation with amplification, turning expression into a metric of attention, governed by corporate architectures. The third mutation emerges in conversational systems and interfaces, where generative text displaces information retrieval, bringing with it dense technolegal entanglements and profound epistemic consequences. Scholars of freedom of expression, informational privacy, and communication studies have long grappled with these dynamics, yet their implications for broader legal thought have also become urgent. This piece seeks to organize and clarify the evolving debate around algorithmic speech, making this critical but often fragmented discourse more accessible to wider legal and interdisciplinary audiences. In doing so, it bridges the gap between observing technological transformation and critically assessing the constitutive role of law within it, offering a conceptual resource for researchers, students, policymakers, and practitioners navigating and contesting this evolving landscape.

Topic modeling is widely used in computational social sciences to identify latent themes in large text corpora. Traditional approaches rely on Bag-of-Words representations and generative models such as LDA, while recent methods like BERTopic operate on dense document embeddings. This paper introduces the Structural Contextual Probabilistic Topic Model (SCPTM), an architecture that incorporates syntactic dependency relations into topic inference. SCPTM represents a corpus as a heterogeneous graph of documents and words connected by lexical and syntactic edges, processed through a Graph Attention Network within a Variational Autoencoder to produce probabilistic, mixed-membership topic distributions. We evaluate seven topic modeling techniques (including four SCPTM ablations) across four corpora differing in register and discourse structure. Our framework combines coherence (C_V, C_NPMI), topic diversity, clustering-label alignment (NMI), and phrase-level diagnostics (complementarity and valence gap). Results show that SCPTM's neural architecture yields substantial gains in document-topic alignment over generative baselines, but these gains are attributable to the variational encoder rather than to syntax. Syntax contributes to topic diversity, where graph-augmented variants outperform the no-graph baseline across all corpora, and to descriptor quality: dependency paths capture predicate-argument structures and stance in deliberative registers, while proving redundant in technical and institutional corpora. The valence gap is positive across all variants, but driven primarily by phrase grouping rather than syntactic filtering. We conclude that syntactic encoding matters conditionally: it benefits action-oriented, argumentative texts, but introduces noise in informational or administrative registers.

Conversational derailment forecasting aims to predict when online discussions will escalate into hostility, enabling proactive moderation. Existing approaches often struggle in low-data settings and to generalize across domains. This poses a challenge for new platforms and smaller communities where annotated data is limited. We propose modeling pragmatic representations of conversations to reduce lexical noise and improve generalizability. Specifically, speech act information is used as an auxiliary learning signal alongside textual semantics. Experimental results show improved performance across three datasets, particularly in low-data and cross-domain settings.

Emotion understanding in discourse requires reasoning beyond surface sentiment because speakers often convey affect through indirect, implicit, polite, ironic, or deliberately mismatched expressions. Existing emotion benchmarks mainly annotate surface polarity or final emotion categories, while lacking a structured account of how explicit expression, implicit affect, pragmatic intent, and fine grained emotion interact. This limitation makes current evaluations insensitive to cases where affective meaning is concealed, weakened, inverted, or pragmatically reshaped, thereby obscuring model failures in deeper emotion understanding. To address this gap, we introduce CUE Bench, a Chinese Unsaid Emotion benchmark that centers on Affective Stance and covers diverse communicative scenarios. CUE Bench constructs nine human interpretable affective stances from explicit implicit polarity interaction and further provides intent and fine grained emotion annotations for structured affective inference. Experiments show that incorporating Affective Stance improves fine grained emotion recognition by 3.5 percentage points and pragmatic intent detection by 7.8 percentage points over strong baselines.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in settings that require collective reasoning on complex, value-laden problems. Confidence in these deployments rests largely on benchmarks for verifiable tasks (mathematics, coding, coordination games), yet many of these applications concern problems where no objectively correct answer exists and where decision quality instead depends on integrating pluralistic perspectives to find mutually acceptable solutions. We argue that LLM reasoning capacity on this class of problems cannot be fully inferred from verifiable-task benchmarks, and that procedural evaluations of LLM discourse (respectfulness, justification, engagement) are systematically insufficient. We apply the Deliberative Reason Index (DRI), a measure developed in political science and validated across citizen assemblies, as a tool for evaluating reliable group-level reasoning on pluralistic, non-verifiable problems. Synthesizing recent evidence across 1,980 five-agent LLM runs on 12 citizen-assembly topics across 11 frontier model configurations, we find that LLM groups produce discourse with procedural quality comparable to human deliberation, while gains in intersubjective consistency are small, topic-dependent, and concentrated on tractable rather than ethically contested questions. LLM groups exhibit roughly one-third the perspective diversity of human assemblies and reverse the human convergence pattern: human deliberation decreases dispersion as diverse views synthesise, whereas LLM deliberation increases it. Engineering diversity through persona prompting does not restore the human dynamic but inverts which component of deliberative reasoning is updated. Our conclusion is constraining rather than prohibitive: LLMs can function as tools supporting human reasoning on pluralistic problems, but current evidence does not license treating them as autonomous deliberative agents.

Conceptual metaphors guide our thinking and actions by allowing us to reason about more abstract experiences (e.g., paying taxes) in terms of more concrete or embodied experiences (e.g., carrying a physical load) (Lakoff and Johnson, 2011). It follows that different conceptual metaphors can result in different reasoning: framing paying taxes as an investment in a community rather than a physical load leads to a very different outlook on taxation. Identifying the conceptual metaphors guiding a speaker or writer thus helps to reveal their framing of events. Though these metaphors can't be observed directly, groups of linguistic metaphors, metaphorical expressions as they appear in language, serve as evidence for them. Motivated by this, we present an unsupervised method that extracts linguistic metaphors from a corpus and uses a structured clustering approach to form groups corresponding to conceptual metaphors. Using this method, we point to key topical and framing differences in left- vs. right-leaning podcasts. For example, left-leaning podcasts tend to conceptualize media stories as a weapon, while right-leaning sources commonly discuss the economy as a system subject to vertical changes.

The rapid growth of large language models (LLMs) has resurrected age-old questions in sociolinguistics and world Englishes, such as who decides what counts as legitimate English, whose English is suspect etc. This paper examines how AI systems, their uses and discourse on them reflect, reinforce, and occasionally challenge (standard) language ideologies, which privilege Inner Circle norms and marginalize non-dominant Englishes. Drawing on evidence from empirical studies, media commentary, social media debates, and examples from AI outputs, the paper shows that AI technologies reproduce dominant language ideologies at different levels: training data, design protocols, evaluation benchmarks, user feedback and public commentary. The analysis uses the public controversy over AI-sounding language, especially the fixation on the word delve, to illustrate how speakers of English from the Global North police the English language norms of Global South English users. The paper also identifies what Christian Mair has called a "standardisation paradox": AI may homogenize English by privileging standard forms and at the same time pluralize Englishes through exposure to wide-ranging corpora and annotation work carried out by Global South users. In doing so, the paper argues that generative AI is reigniting long-standing debates in World Englishes about standardization, legitimacy, and the ownership of English, now playing out in algorithmic systems, model training, evaluation practices, and public discourse, where non-dominant Englishes are increasingly conflated with AI-generated speech. Discussing AI systems as a site where language ideologies are (re)produced, the paper argues for more inclusive design approaches that recognize the plurality of Englishes in order to address the real-world negative consequences of treating some as more legitimate than others.

Prompt compression shortens LLM input to reduce inference cost, yet existing methods score token importance through LM forward passes. It remains questionable whether such nuanced, costly token selection is necessary. Compression requires identifying informative content, a problem that linguistic research has long addressed through cues that can be operationalized as deterministic rules. We therefore ask: can \textbf{linguistic rules alone} serve as effective prompt compressors, without LM-based scoring at compression time? To address this, we conduct offline evolutionary search over lexical, syntactic, semantic, and discourse seeds to find competitive rule combinations. The resulting linguistic compressor requires no LM forward pass at deployment and uses only CPU-side processing for compression. We evaluate it with a dual-path protocol to balance compression quality and reconstruction fidelity. Across short passages, multi-document reasoning, and dialogue-memory QA datasets, evolved compressors achieve performance similar to that of recent advanced prompt-compression strategies. Performance is strongest under light-to-moderate compression and degrades as compression becomes more aggressive, while the Direct and Reconstruction paths exhibit distinct patterns. Evolutionary analysis reveals that effective compression fuses signals across linguistic levels and, as the compression ratio increases, rules shift from token pruning to sentence extraction.

This study investigates silence gaps in two kinds of audiovisual material. We analysed thirty US situational comedies and fifty-one synthetic podcasts generated with Google NotebookLM. Gaps were compared across speaker gender, assigned from a fundamental-frequency threshold estimated in Praat, and across production settings.

Discourse data are the primary empirical basis of grammar writing in field linguistics, but producing interlinearized text is notoriously expensive - on the order of one hour of work per minute of recording. For endangered languages, where the time remaining to verify analyses with native speakers is itself limited, automating parts of the interlinearization workflow has direct documentary value. We implement a full neural annotation pipeline (morpheme segmentation, POS tagging, glossing) for Irabu Ryukyuan using deliberately small, transparent BiLSTM-CRF models, and evaluate it under a realistic hard constraint: approximately one hour of fully annotated discourse as the entire supervised resource. Two factors of the annotation itself are manipulated: its richness (with or without a POS tier) and its quantity (training budgets from 6 to 47 minutes). Gold POS improves grammatical glossing by +4.4 (SD 0.7) points (significant in all 5 seeds), and the gain grows as data shrink (+11.6 points at a quarter of the data); a POS tier more than halves the amount of glossed data needed to reach a given accuracy. In a fully automatic pipeline this gain is not yet realized: the tagger still errs on 12% of morphemes, and an incorrect POS misleads the glossing model more than no POS at all. The value is latent rather than lost: degrading gold POS with controlled noise shows the gain returning as tagger accuracy rises, with break-even near our tagger's current 88% and +1.6 to +3.2 points recovered at 92-96%. We conclude with a concrete recommendation for documentation practice: annotate quadrilinearly - text, POS, gloss, translation.

Policy documents shape governance outcomes, but their reasoning is often implicit. Participatory commitments and managerial control routinely coexist in the same text, and the tensions between them are rarely stated directly. Existing computational approaches to policy discourse cannot express the frame-mediated relations that drive these tensions, where one argument narrows or instrumentalizes another rather than rejecting it. End-to-end summarization by large language models produces fluent text but offers little structure that domain experts can inspect or contest. We present Apaf, a hybrid LLM--symbolic pipeline that operationalizes critical discourse analysis as a quantitative bipolar argumentation framework over policy text. Arguments are first classified into deliberative or managerial frames. Four frame-mediated relation subtypes (agency reduction, agenda shift, instrumental support, and normative support) are then produced by deterministic rules over LLM-extracted features. We release a novel dataset of 100 sub-documents of disaster-risk-reduction policy from the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia, and show that the resulting argument graphs are accurate, interpretable, and stable across jurisdictions.

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI (GenAI) into education presents significant opportunities to enhance teaching and learning, while raising ethical concerns about the responsible use of these technologies in educational settings. Understanding how the public perceives and debates these issues is increasingly important for educators, institutions, and policymakers seeking to integrate AI responsibly and equitably. Social media platforms, where such debates unfold frequently and at scale, offer a valuable lens for capturing large-scale, real-time public reactions to key developments as they emerge. In this study, we analyse five years (2019-2024) of discourse on Twitter (now X) to trace the evolving public conversation around AI ethics in education, paying particular attention to the release of ChatGPT as a pivotal moment that reshaped the nature and tone of that discourse. Using BERT-based topic modelling and SetFit sentiment analysis to identify dominant themes and track sentiment over time, we find that the discourse has been predominantly positive across the observation period, with negative sentiment concentrated around specific ethical controversies. More recently, anxieties about academic integrity and the broader implications of generative AI have come to dominate the conversation. Rather than reflecting a polarized debate, public discourse appears pragmatic and largely receptive to AI integration, though accompanied by growing calls for ethical oversight and institutional accountability. By providing a longitudinal account of public sentiment surrounding AI ethics in education, this study informs educators, institutions, and policymakers an empirically grounded understanding of public expectations, informing the development of responsible, transparent, and equitable approaches to AI integration across educational contexts.

Computational social science increasingly relies on automated preprocessing pipelines -- speaker diarization, ASR transcript cleaning, sentence segmentation -- to convert raw media into analyzable text. When these pipelines produce different outputs from the same input, two distinct sources of instability can arise: the preprocessing pipeline itself (diarization method, segmentation rules) and the downstream measurement instrument (LLM annotation vs.\ keyword lexicon). Using 256 YouTube interviews across 41 public figures from five domains, we compare two speaker-diarization pipelines and two measurement methods, all targeting the coupling between affective valence and epistemic modality. We find that (1) preprocessing pipeline sensitivity is concentrated in speakers with limited video samples (N $\leq 5$); for the four best-sampled speakers (N $\geq 16$), the mean absolute pipeline-induced change in $r(\text{neg}, \text{emph})$ is only $0.13$; (2) cross-method disagreement is larger and more systematic -- the LLM and keyword-lexicon methods assign opposite coupling directions to several well-sampled speakers, even within the same preprocessing pipeline; and (3) aggregate valence proportions are highly stable ($|Δp(\text{neg})| < 6$pp) regardless of pipeline or method, masking both sources of instability. The contribution is a diagnostic framework that separates pipeline effects from measurement effects: researchers studying cross-dimensional relationships in interview data should verify that their conclusions are robust to both sources of variation, with particular attention to measurement method choice.

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

Harmful online communication often contains slang, coded terms, abbreviations, and community-specific expressions, which make messages difficult to interpret. This paper presents an exploratory study of interpretation difficulty in Discord chats related to cybercrime. We construct reference interpretations of purposefully selected difficult messages, which were reviewed by an expert. We then use them to evaluate human and large language model (LLM) interpretations under different context conditions. The results show that local context alone is often insufficient for humans, while external knowledge and extended conversational context substantially improve human interpretation. For LLMs, local context also improves interpretation, and the larger model performs better. We further conduct a qualitative error analysis and propose a preliminary classification of factors that make harmful chats difficult to interpret. These findings suggest that harmful-content analysis should treat interpretation as an evidence-integration problem, rather than as message-level classification alone.

Language models are increasingly used to quantify cultural phenomena, but what makes such measurement distinctively cultural? This paper argues that NLP work on culture is a material-discursive practice: the apparatus -- model, data, annotation, evaluation -- participates in constituting the cultural reality it measures, rather than passively recording it. Drawing on Karen Barad's concept of the agential cut -- the contingent boundary between phenomenon and instrument -- I show that the apparatus's substantive design choices draw such boundaries, and that the boundary is entangled from the start because language models have already internalized much of the cultural material they measure. I illustrate this through three case studies on television and film dialogue (measuring structure, interaction, and deviation) and three examinations of the apparatus itself (erasure of cultural markers, attunement to historical material, and agency in an agentic workflow). This big picture analysis proposes a research program that is theory-driven, empirically rigorous, and culturally contingent, treating each agential cut as a conscious commitment, at once methodological and ethical.

Online hate speech has been linked to a global rise in violence against minorities, including incidents such as mass shootings, lynchings, and ethnic cleansing. Societies grappling with this issue, particularly when hate speech targets specific groups based on religion, race, ethnicity, culture, nationality, or migration status, face the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with the need for effective content moderation on widely used online platforms. In response to this challenge, we introduce a comprehensive hate speech dataset covering five distinct topics in Turkish: refugees, the Israel-Palestine conflict, anti-Greek sentiment in Turkey, ethnic or religious communities (Alevis, Armenians, Arabs, Jews, and Kurds), and LGBTI+, alongside one topic in Arabic (refugees). In addition, we develop state-of-the-art BERT-based models to address multiple dimensions of hate speech analysis, including hate category classification, hate intensity prediction, target identification, and hate speech span detection, enabling a comprehensive understanding of hateful content in online discourse.

Quantifying how meaning propagates through communicative exchanges remains underdeveloped in computational linguistics. Here we introduce an information-theoretic framework that quantifies the directed flow of semantic content between interlocutors and decomposes multi-source contributions into redundant, unique, and synergistic components. Our approach leverages large language models as probabilistic estimators of natural language to compute two measures: semantic transfer entropy (STE), which captures directed predictive influence between speakers, and semantic partial information decomposition (SPID), which resolves how multiple sources jointly shape a target's language. Across four experiments we show that the framework detects reduced information flow in cognitively rigid dialogue, captures the dominant role of persuaders in shaping discourse, distinguishes high- from low-quality psychotherapy by the directionality of therapist-client information exchange, and reveals synergistic premise contributions in argumentative essays. This framework opens new avenues for studying information dynamics in digital discourse, pedagogical interactions, clinical dialogues, and any domain in which the structure of linguistic exchange is of research relevance.

Ultra-fine entity typing (UFET) assigns highly specific types to entity mentions, but current approaches struggle with types in the long tail. We hypothesize that a key limitation is the reliance on sentence-level context, since disambiguating evidence is often spread across multiple sentences. Testing this has been difficult because all existing UFET resources are sentence-level. We present Narrative-UFET, a controlled extension of UFET in which each entity mention is paired with an automatically generated short, coherent narrative. Synthesizing narratives lets us isolate the effect of specific discourse properties. We experiment with two paired variants: one in which the entity's type is held constant across the narrative (Maintain) and one in which it shifts (Change). We show that narrative context yields consistent improvements on long-tail types over sentence-level baselines, with the Change variant providing the stronger signal. A comparison against naturally occurring contexts shows that synthetic narratives yield stronger gains, indicating that controlled discourse construction can surface signals that real text leaves implicit. Substantial room for improvement remains, suggesting open directions in both discourse modeling and narrative construction.

As previous research on annotator disagreement in discourse phenomena has shown, understanding text coherence varies considerably from one individual to another. To explore this phenomenon, we created two corpora with multiple annotations of Czech texts, accompanied by annotators' explanations of their choices. The first corpus consists of 1,024 contexts annotated in parallel by three annotators. It captures differences in the identification of coreference across various text types and grammatical-semantic categories, including pronouns, full noun phrases, and anaphoric adverbials. The second corpus comprises 512 contexts, annotated in parallel by five annotators, and focuses on identifying discourse relations in attributive and non-attributive constructions. Both corpora achieve a comparable inter-annotator agreement of approximately 60-65%. For coreference annotation, agreement tends to be lower in cases where automatic coreference resolution models disagree, suggesting that when the models disagree, the examples tend to be more difficult or ambiguous for human annotators to interpret. The annotators' comments, both for coreference and discourse relations, further reveal differences in interpretation, varying levels of confidence in text understanding, and individual reading strategies.

The increasing prominence of Large Language Models (LLMs) in public discourse presents both opportunities and challenges for democratic deliberation. While red teaming strategies help mitigate specific risks, broader concerns persist regarding linguistic constraints, biases, and the sycophantic tendencies of LLMs. This chapter explores how LLMs can be used to significantly scale up and democratise deliberation, particularly in fostering inclusivity and empowering traditionally marginalised groups. Drawing on concepts from Systemic-Functional Linguistics, the chapter examines how variations across language users (for example, with respect to socio-demographic groups) and across language use (for example, with respect to communicative functions) shape participation in AI-supported deliberation. The chapter presents AI-driven deliberation studies and assesses their potential to scaffold argumentation, enhance access, and reduce the influence of exclusionary linguistic norms and biases which are embedded in prestigious registers. At the same time, the chapter cautions against both overclaiming, which leads to unrealistic expectations, and underclaiming, which risks missed opportunities for AI-assisted engagement. The chapter concludes by identifying future research directions to maximise the democratic potential of AI-assisted participation while embedding ethical safeguards to counteract the reproduction of linguistic inequalities.

Existing machine translation (MT) metrics and discourse-focused evaluations primarily assess translation quality intrinsically, without measuring the downstream consequences of translation errors. In this work, we focus on extrinsic discourse evaluation of machine translation under two distinct regimes: static and interactive. Under the static regime, we propose an entity counting task as a probe of referential consistency in discourse. We show that high intrinsic MT quality does not reliably predict downstream discourse success and strong MT systems still produce referential inconsistencies. For the interactive regime, we study the goal-oriented multi-agent Welfare Diplomacy game as a probe of long-horizon communication and coordination. We find that interaction-specific translation failures impact downstream coordination. Our results highlight goal-oriented environments as a viable framework for discourse-sensitive extrinsic MT evaluation.

Qualitative coding is central to social science, but expert annotation is difficult to scale. LLMs offer a possible extension, yet require careful validation when the target construct is interpretive, theoretically loaded, and only indirectly expressed. We study this problem in a difficult case: detecting whether authors treat Bayesian models as descriptions of mental and neural mechanisms (realism) or as useful mathematical tools (instrumentalism). Our method combines a theory-driven codebook, expert-coded reference annotations, a diagnostic-gated prompt-optimization search yielding a shared zero-shot prompt for three frontier LLMs (GPT-5.1, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro Preview), and multi-rater reliability analysis. The final prompt achieved a held-out combined reliability score of 0.76 (harmonic mean of ICC = 0.79 and $α$ = 0.74), with all diagnostics satisfied. Deployed on 6,858 quotes from 210 articles, the three LLMs reached substantial quote-level agreement (ICC = 0.80; $α$ = 0.76; combined = 0.78) and near-perfect article-level rank stability ($r$ = 0.96-0.97 across rater pairs). The corpus was predominantly weakly realist, but article-level stances were rarely uniform: only 1.4% of articles used a single band, while 59.5% spanned four or more. Low-level perception/motor articles scored 8.8 Realism points higher than high-level cognition articles ($p < .001$, $d = 0.60$), quantifying a long-held qualitative intuition. We present this as an expert-led case study; the framework is intended to generalize to similar theoretically demanding tasks, not to all qualitative analysis.

Online group chats are social spaces with local conversational norms that are rarely stated explicitly. The ability and willingness of LLM-based agents to recognize and adapt to these norms remains mostly unexplored. We introduce LoSoNA, a benchmark for local social norm adaptation in multi-party chat. Each scenario gives a subject model a curated group-chat transcript in which non-subject participants demonstrate a hidden local norm, followed by a final elicitor turn that forces a response revealing whether the subject has inferred that norm. We evaluate eight frontier and open-weight models under four prompting conditions that vary how explicitly the model is told to treat the prior conversation as evidence for how it should answer. Naive prompting remains limited for most models; explicit norm-aware prompting helps unevenly, with Gemini 3.1 Pro reaching $84.2\%$ and Claude Fable 5 reaching $81.6\%$, while several other models show small gains or regressions. LoSoNA contributes to recent calls for evaluating LLM social capabilities by testing whether models can infer local conversational norms from precedent and use them in a one-turn group-chat response.

How do people cope when disaster strikes and can we detect it at scale, in real time, from what they write? This study addresses that question using over one million Turkish-language tweets posted in the aftermath of the February 6, 2023 earthquake in Turkiye, which unfolded in a deeply polarized political context just months before a national election. Drawing on Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) coping theory, we develop a multi-label BERTurk classifier to detect three coping styles (problem-focused, emotion-focused, and meaning-making) across four theoretically motivated crisis phases. BERTurk achieves a macro F1 of 0.693, substantially outperforming a zero-shot mDeBERTa baseline (macro F1 = 0.324). Applied to the full corpus, the classifier reveals a clear temporal trajectory: problem-focused coping dominates the urgency phase and declines sharply, emotion-focused coping rises and stabilizes, and meaning-making increases monotonically. Anger correlates most strongly with meaning-making (Spearman r = 0.387), suggesting it functions as a mobilizing force toward blame attribution rather than practical action. These findings demonstrate that coping theory can be reliably operationalized in real-world digital crisis data and that doing so can help humanitarian organizations tailor their responses to where a population actually is.

The increasing availability of large-scale textual corpora has opened new possibilities for data-driven, quantitative approaches to historical analysis using Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, diachronic corpora with historical relevance from the pre-digital era remain scarce and often incomplete. We present a quantitative approach to historical analysis based on the reconstruction and exploration of a diachronic corpus of around 600,000 articles from the Italian newspaper "La Repubblica", covering all the articles published from the 1st of January 1985 to the 31st of December 2000 - a period of major political, social, and geopolitical change in Italy and globally. Using NLP techniques, we analyze the text at both lexical and semantic levels; we then apply tools from complex systems and statistical physics to trace shifts in media discourse over time. This allows us to detect key transition periods, such as the transition from the First Republic to the Second Republic in Italy, or major international conflicts like the Gulf War or the Kosovo War, without relying on prior labeling. The results show how combining computational linguistics with ideas from complex systems can offer new quantitative insight into historical changes, opening up new paths for studying the dynamics of media and society through large-scale textual data.

Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjective. We present a resource of 1,482 tweets from politically controversial discourse, annotated by five annotators for the presence of enthymemes and their argument structure, designed to study label variation. We first revisit the definition of enthymemes and propose annotation guidelines anchored in Walton's argumentation schemes, offering a structured and constrained approach that nonetheless preserves room for the interpretive nature of the task. This contrasts with past resources, which tend to eliminate disagreement, obscuring its sources and preventing investigation of its potential benefits for model performance. We further propose a complexity analysis of the task, identifying where annotation imposes high cognitive load and may give rise to inconsistent annotation. Our preliminary experiments show that models trained on annotator disagreement outperform models trained on hard majority-vote labels. We close by reflecting on how structural openness in enthymeme definitions and guidelines enables the study of variation in subjective inferential processes for future resources and downstream NLP applications concerned with human inference.

Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking. How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes? We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit (2023-2026), combining LLM judgment on 7,500 sampled accusations of AI use, sentiment trajectories, speech-act coding of 300 confirmed accusations of AI use, and a matched-control test of accused versus non-accused parent comments. We found that the pejorative-label share of accusations rose more than tenfold on both platforms while a placebo vocabulary of pre-2022 inauthenticity terms (shill, astroturf) did not. This shift reflected a fast-growing trend of branding any suspicious or seemingly inauthentic prose as "AI slop". The slop frame now constitutes 94 percent of pejorative mentions, with the dominant comments shifting in tone from mockery toward gatekeeping and structural protest. The key surprise comes from a matched-control test which found that prose features that statistically distinguish AI from human text do not predict which human text gets accused as AI. The new accusations work as social gatekeeping of perceived authenticity without actually screening for AI. This research extends signaling theory by showing that substitute signals used socially can grow even when inaccurate if the underlying detection problem cannot be solved at the non-expert level. It shows that AI's effects on writing from the reader side are distinct from those on the production (writer) side. Detection technology cannot resolve this dynamic because the social function of accusations is increasingly to perform social gatekeeping and in-group signaling as opposed to identifying AI-generated writing.

We present StanceNakba 2026, a shared task on stance detection in polarized social media discourse related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, organized as part of Nakba-NLP 2026 at LREC-COLING 2026. The task introduces two subtasks: Subtask A (Actor-Level Stance Detection), which classifies English social media posts as Pro-Palestine, Pro-Israel, or Neutral; and Subtask B (Cross-Topic Stance Detection), which identifies Favor, Against, or Neither stances in Arabic posts toward two conflict-related topics, normalization with Israel and refugee presence in Jordan. The task is grounded in an annotated dataset of 2,606 social media posts. A total of 7 teams participated in Subtask A and 6 teams in Subtask B. Participating systems primarily fine-tuned Arabic and multilingual transformer-based models, including MARBERT, AraBERT, and DeBERTa-v3 variants, with several teams employing cross-validation, ensemble methods, and topic-conditioned architectures. The best-performing systems achieved a Macro F1 of 0.9620 on Subtask A and 0.8724 on Subtask B, demonstrating that transformer-based approaches are highly effective for conflict-domain stance detection while highlighting persistent challenges in cross-topic generalization and neutral class prediction.

Computational mental health research has predominantly centered on English-speaking populations, leaving Arabic-language discourse comparatively under-examined. We present an exploratory computational study of 8,147 tweets from 607 users classified by a GPT-4.1 personal-disclosure pipeline as likely lived-experience authors in three condition-specific Arabic-language X (formerly Twitter) Communities. We focus on discourse related to borderline personality disorder (BPD), bipolar disorder, and ADHD, and characterize community-associated linguistic patterns using a multi-domain cultural keyword framework. The results suggest that in this corpus, Bipolar tweets contain more religious and medical vocabulary, BPD tweets contain more relational, identity, and emotional-distress vocabulary, and ADHD tweets more often focus on practical symptoms and medication management. We treat these patterns as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory because the corpus is imbalanced across conditions, some subcorpora are temporally concentrated, and the keyword framework is an initial operationalization rather than a validated measurement instrument. The paper contributes a reusable LLM-assisted personal-disclosure pipeline and an exploratory cultural keyword framework for Arabic mental health discourse.

Sign language models are predominantly trained with gloss-sequence or text supervision, thereby under-modeling non-lexical and productive constructions. One comparatively tractable instance is spatial indexing: pointing gestures that assign discourse entities to spatial loci for subsequent co-reference, which lexicon-centric objectives largely fail to capture. We present a targeted evaluation of indexing in Sign Language Recognition, showing that despite comprising 10-15% of signing content, indexing is poorly recovered. We introduce a framework for training and evaluating indexing experts, establishing a baseline for index-aware sign language modeling. Our approach decomposes spatial reference resolution into index detection and discourse entity linking. The resulting mention representations enable automatic annotation and non-lexical structure modeling, and serve as an auxiliary indexing expert that augments a frozen SLR model at inference time.

Frame analysis of migration news is a socially consequential task: media scholars and researchers who study how migration is narrated need tools that are not only accurate, but transparent, auditable, and accessible within the resource constraints typical of academic research groups. Existing LLM-based approaches rely on proprietary APIs and large models that raise concerns about data privacy, reproducibility and equitable access among media researchers. This work studies how a locally deployable open-source LLM can support interpretable frame analysis as an assistive tool. We introduce a Structured Chain-of-Thought (SCoT) prompting approach using Llama3-8B, enabling step-by-step justifications grounded in predefined framing categories. This structured design allows users to audit model outputs and examine alternative interpretations in a task that is inherently subjective. We evaluate our approach on a dataset of migration-related news and show that SCoT improves classification performance over zero-shot and few-shot baselines while remaining feasible on a single GPU. Then, we conduct a human-centered evaluation in which annotators assess the coherence and influence of "the model's reasoning". Results indicate that SCoT explanations are generally perceived as logical (mean score 4.1/5, though with notable variation across texts) and can prompt reflection on initial interpretations, even when disagreement persists. Our findings highlight both the potential and risks of LLM-assisted frame analysis. While structured reasoning can increase the traceability of model outputs and support critical interpretation, it can also influence human judgment in subtle ways. By enabling local deployment and emphasizing human-in-the-loop interaction, this work contributes to discussions on responsible and accessible computational tools for the study of socially impactful media narratives.

Public discourse on AI has become polarized; exaggerated positions on AI in traditional and social media threaten the development of AI Literacy among the general public. In this article, I introduce the VET Framework, a method for categorizing AI discourse along the dimensions of valence, effectiveness, and trajectory. I show how this framework can be used to identify, compare, and critique prevalent narratives of AI Hype, AI Doom, AI Denial, and AI Normalcy. Using VET, I analyze how each of these four stances exaggerates some aspects of the current state and/or likely evolution of AI, and illustrate how the VET framework can serve as an AI Literacy tool by supporting the ``vetting'' of polarized AI discourse.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are widely deployed and increasingly influential, but their reliance on external corpora exposes new security risks from poisoned retrieval content. Existing RAG attacks are largely focusing on individual queries or narrow topic-local query sets, which limits their practical reach and offers limited camouflage in real-world settings. In this paper, we introduce discourse-level opinion manipulation, a new threat model in which coordinated influence across a semantic query network induces opinion shifts over a holistic, multi-topic query space. We formalize this threat in a black-box setting and propose DiscourseFlip, an agentic, graph-guided attack that dynamically allocates a limited poisoning budget to maximize discourse-level opinion deviation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DiscourseFlip consistently induces targeted opinion shifts across the contextualized query network and significantly outperforms existing baselines in terms of coverage and effectiveness. User studies further confirm that DiscourseFlip is effective while remaining well camouflaged from user detection. Moreover, systematic analyses show that existing mitigation strategies are ineffective against discourse-level manipulation, underscoring the urgent need for more robust and adaptive defenses to address discourse-level vulnerabilities.

Temporal language does more than place events on a timeline. In news discourse, references to the past, present, and future can function as rhetorical devices that shape interpretation and persuasion. Here, we study temporal framing, defined as the persuasive use of time-related language to structure meaning rather than to report chronology. We propose a taxonomy of eight temporal frames grounded in prior work on temporality and framing, and we realize it through expert annotation of a multilingual news corpus. The resulting dataset includes 458 English and German news articles, with over 2K temporally framed sentences and approximately 3K temporal framing annotations identified from a corpus of more than 20K sentences. We analyze frame prevalence, co-occurrence patterns, and lexical cues, and evaluate temporal framing detection using supervised fine-tuning and zero-shot classification. Our experiments show that temporal framing is learnable at the sentence level, with supervised models substantially outperforming zero-shot approaches. We publicly release the corpus to support future research on temporal framing: https://mbzuai-nlp.github.io/temporal-framing/.

Third-person singular pronouns have long been used to study stereotypical biases in language models and to test their abilities to reason about reference. More recently, the interplay between reasoning and bias has been investigated with the task of pronoun fidelity, which assesses models' abilities to correctly reuse a previously-specified pronoun for a discourse entity, independent of other potentially distracting discourse entities mentioned in between. However, such research focuses on English, which is a language with limited grammatical gender and almost no gender agreement. In this paper we contribute a novel, large-scale dataset, GRUFF, to measure pronoun fidelity in German, covering four different gender agreement systems in nouns, and four sets of pronouns. With this dataset, we show that LLMs show strong grammatical agreement for masculine and feminine entities in the absence of explicit context, but not for neopronouns xier and en. Models are generally not robust to distractors, but encoder-only models are more robust in German than in English, reflecting the importance of grammatical gender. Finally, we show that occupational stereotypes in this context are poorly correlated across grammatical cases, and across most models, except ones with closely related architectures. We release all code and data to encourage further work on gender-inclusive language and referential reasoning in German.

When workers lose jobs to AI-driven restructuring, two very different conversations happen on X (formerly Twitter) at the same time. Tech executives and AI researchers talk about productivity, transformation, and opportunity. Laid-off workers and labour critics talk about job loss, uncertainty, and fear. This paper asks a simple question: which conversation gets more reach? We report three studies using two collection methods and 763 tweets from 20 named public accounts. Study 1 used keyword-based collection (n=392) and found no significant difference between corpora (p=0.891), revealing that keyword search is too noisy for this task. Study 2 used account-based collection (n=96) and found a 3.12x mean amplification advantage for capital discourse over labour discourse (p=0.000003, Cohen's d=0.555). Study 3 combined both methods (n=763) and confirmed the finding at 4.18x mean and 10.77x median amplification ratio (p<0.000001). Critically, after normalising for follower count, the asymmetry persists at 2.69x (p=0.000009, Cohen's d=0.491), demonstrating that the effect is not simply a consequence of capital accounts having larger audiences. The finding is robust across all tested amplification metric weightings. We introduce the Amplification Ratio and Amplification Normalisation Index as simple metrics for measuring platform-level discourse inequality. A cross-platform replication on Reddit (n=647 posts) did not replicate the finding, suggesting the asymmetry may be specific to X's account-based amplification architecture. We discuss the methodological implications for cross-platform discourse analysis.

We introduce quantitative metrics for child language acquisition to evaluate language models. Our focus is on the formal syntactic and functional discourse properties of determiners in English, which young children acquire early and accurately. We propose Contextual Alternative Choice (CAC), a new prompting method which provides targeted tests for both syntactic and discourse knowledge of language. The method enables direct comparison of language models against children, and more importantly, against statistical benchmarks independently established in empirical research. No current model trained on a comparable amount of data simultaneously meet both formal and functional benchmarks like human children, but some very large models do. We present our results as methodological and technical contributions, with specific emphasis on cognitive status of language models.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly evaluated for whether they identify the right visual content, but little is known about whether they express such content in a discourse-appropriate form. We address this research gap using information structure (IS), testing whether VLMs distinguish discourse-old Topics from discourse-new Foci in visually grounded question answering. We exploit Hungarian, a language in which Topic and Focus map onto dedicated syntactic positions, making IS choices observable in text. Comparing six VLMs with human participants, we find that models produce IS-relevant constructions, but over-regularise this sensitivity. Under the interacting pressures of discourse status, grammatical role (preference for subject Topics) and definiteness (preference for indefinite Foci), humans choose variable strategies for IS realisation. VLMs, by contrast, collapse onto narrow response templates, resembling mode collapse (Kirk et al., 2024). Our findings suggest that VLM evaluation should look beyond content accuracy to how content is packaged for the discourse.

We introduce interaction SSD, an extension of Supervised Semantic Differential that models how semantic meaning varies across moderators such as groups, traits, or conditions making this variation testable and interpretable. The method estimates a main semantic gradient, an interaction gradient, and conditional gradients, all interpretable through standard SSD tools. We illustrate it on the UC Berkeley Measuring Hate Speech corpus, testing whether annotator racial identity moderates hate-speech judgments of comments targeting people of color. The interaction model detects a significant moderation effect: the shared gradient contrasts dehumanizing hostility with counter-speech, while the interaction gradient reveals smaller group-linked differences in which semantic cues predict hate-speech ratings. Interaction SSD makes moderated meaning-outcome relationships statistically testable and interpretable.

Emotion-Cause Pair Extraction (ECPE) was introduced to explain why an emotion occurs, but this goal is now often reduced to binary pair/non-pair prediction. This proxy is useful for direct-cause extraction, yet easy to over-read as evidence grounded emotion explanation. We show that this interpretation is only partially valid. In IEMO-MECP, 90.9% of original positives remain emo-cause and 95.0% of original negatives remain non-pair, confirming that the binary ECPE task is largely preserved. The problem is that direct triggers alone do not constitute a grounded explanation. Emo-context, an utterance that helps interpret a target emotion without directly causing it, appears on both sides of the original boundary and is enriched near binary uncertainty, showing that the binary boundary has no stable place for such discourse evidence. Across evaluated ECPE models, direct triggers are recovered more reliably than contextual support. Under shortcut pressure, this imbalance becomes consequential. Binary-trained models assign higher pair scores to nearby lexically similar non-pair candidates than to evidence supported but structurally harder emo-cause and emo-context pairs. Thus, pair scores can reward convenient attributions over grounded explanations. High binary ECPE performance indicates that a model can identify direct triggers; it does not indicate that the model has explained the emotion. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/panzhzh/ECPExsame.

The integration of large language models into political discourse analysis creates new opportunities for comparative research, policy analysis, and civic technology, while introducing material risks for democratic accountability. This paper argues that cultural adaptation is a prerequisite for trustworthy deployment of large language models in political communication across diverse linguistic and institutional contexts. Current systems remain shaped by English dominant data, uneven multilingual coverage, and assumptions grounded in a narrow range of political institutions and discourse conventions, producing systematic errors when applied across cultures. We formalize cultural adaptation across translation, discourse, and ontology levels, identify recurring cultural failure modes in political NLP, and propose an operational evaluation matrix grounded in cultural fidelity, calibration, and democratic safety. Building on political text analysis, sociotechnical auditing, and cross cultural pragmatics, we outline methodological pathways including participatory dataset development, culturally aware transfer learning, and benchmark design that makes cultural adaptation empirically measurable. We conclude by clarifying governance constraints and scope conditions under which culturally adaptive political NLP can support democratic legitimacy.

Social media has become a crucial arena for shaping public narratives during armed conflicts, providing space for both harmful and constructive communication. While hate speech and misinformation have been widely studied, expressions that promote resilience, solidarity, and optimism remain underexplored, particularly in Arabic contexts. This paper introduces AraHopeCorpus, the first annotated dataset of Arabic hope speech collected from ten thousand YouTube comments related to the war on Gaza between 2023 and 2024. Using a detailed annotation framework, comments were classified into three categories: hope speech, no hope speech, and neutral or unclear discourse. The dataset shows that hopeful language dominates, accounting for more than sixty four percent of all comments. These expressions of hope appear mainly as religious encouragement, collective solidarity, and optimism for endurance and justice. No hope speech, representing about thirteen percent, reflects despair and disillusionment, while the rest of the comments contain neutral or mixed content. Inter-Annotator Agreement reached substantial levels (Cohen's Kappa equals 0.71), though dialectal variation, sarcasm, and implicit meaning posed annotation challenges. A comparative analysis between human annotators and ChatGPT revealed that large language models can support annotation but remain limited in handling dialectal and culturally embedded expressions. AraHopeCorpus will be released for research purposes under an open and non commercial license. It provides a valuable resource for studying constructive digital discourse, enabling further research on hope speech detection, crisis communication, and resilience in Arabic social media.

The study of online discourse has become central to understanding societal polarization. While much research has focused on detecting overt toxicity, the subtle dynamics of social cohesion, meaning the interaction between divisive and unifying narratives, remain computationally underexplored (Bail, 2021; Gonzalez-Bailon and Lelkes, 2023). This paper presents Cohesion-6K, a manually and ChatGPT-assisted annotated dataset of six thousand Arabic public Facebook posts related to the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. Each post is assigned to one of five discourse categories that represent a continuum from conflict to cohesion: Conflict, Resolution, Community Engagement, Supportive Interactions, and Shared Values. The annotation process combines expert human judgment with model-assisted pre-labeling verified by trained annotators, achieving substantial inter-annotator agreement (Cohens kappa = 0.85). Quantitative analysis reveals a consistent engagement gap, where conflict-oriented posts receive between two and four times more user interaction than resolution-oriented ones (p < 0.01). This pattern illustrates how divisive discourse tends to attract disproportionate visibility in Arabic social media spaces. Cohesion-6K provides a transparent and reproducible resource for the study of online cohesion and polarization. The dataset, annotation guidelines, and preprocessing code will be released for research use under an open license, supporting future work in computational social science, digital communication, and Arabic natural language processing.

We present ArabDiscrim, a decade-long lexical resource and corpus of 293K public Arabic Facebook posts (2014--2024) discussing racism and discrimination. Unlike existing Twitter-centric datasets, ArabDiscrim integrates platform-native engagement signals, including reactions, shares, comments, and page metadata, enabling joint analysis of language and audience response. The resource includes 200 curated terms (100 racism-related and 100 discrimination-related) with morphological regex families (13+ inflections per lemma), and 20 discrimination axes capturing identity-based grounds for unequal treatment. It also provides explicit attribution patterns. Released under a restricted research-use license for ethical compliance with platform terms, ArabDiscrim supports weak supervision, axis-aware sampling, and platform ecology research. By bridging lexical depth and ecological validity, it establishes a foundation for fairness-oriented, platform-aware Arabic NLP.

AI agents are increasingly interacting within shared online environments, creating new operational security risks. We analyze activity on Moltbook, a Reddit-style social platform where AI agents--typically configured and overseen by human operators--post and interact with one another at scale. Using a dataset of 228,684 posts produced by more than 39,500 accounts over a seventeen-day observation window, we combine semantic clustering of high-engagement posts with LLM-assisted classification of harmful content and manual review of high-risk samples. The analysis identifies 98 thematic discourse clusters spanning agent infrastructure, autonomy debates, and financial activity. While most observed content was benign, 18.28% of posts contained toxic, manipulative, or malicious material. We cluster malicious content and identify 74 classes of malicious behavior, including credential harvesting attempts, host-execution instructions, proxy routing guidance, and efforts to install untrusted agent skills. Harmful content frequently appeared within mainstream operational discussions about agent functionality. We also document coordinated posting campaigns capable of generating thousands of posts in minutes.

Memes have become a prominent medium of political communication in the Arab world, reflecting how humor, imagery, and text interact to express ideological and cultural positions. Despite the centrality of memes to online political discourse, there is a lack of systematically curated resources for analyzing their multimodal and ideological dimensions in Arabic. This paper presents ArPoMeme, a large-scale dataset of approximately 7,300 Arabic political memes categorized by ideological orientation, including Leftist, Islamist, Pan-Arabist, and Satirical perspectives. The dataset captures the diversity of Arabic meme ecosystems by grounding classification in the self-identification of public Facebook pages and groups that produce and disseminate these memes. To ensure both scale and accuracy, we designed a semi-automated data collection pipeline combining Playwright-based Facebook scraping with Google Drive synchronization, followed by text extraction using the Qwen2.5-VL-7B vision language model. The extracted text was manually verified and annotated for three polarization dimensions: Us vs. Them framing, Hostility toward out-groups, and Calls to action. Annotation was conducted through a custom Streamlit-based interface supporting distributed labeling, real-time tracking, and version control. The resulting dataset links visual content, textual messages, and ideological orientation, enabling fine-grained analysis of political antagonism, mobilization, and humor. Quantitative analysis of the annotated corpus reveals strong asymmetries in antagonistic framing across ideological groups, with Islamist and satirical memes exhibiting the highest levels of hostility and mobilization cues. The dataset and the annotation tool offers a reproducible and publicly available resource for studying Arabic political discourse, multimodal ideology detection, and polarization dynamics.

This paper introduces JobArabi, a large-scale corpus of Arabic job announcements collected from social media between January 2024 and October 2025. The dataset contains 20,528 public posts from X and captures more than two years of employment-related discourse across Arabic-speaking online communities. The corpus was compiled using a linguistically informed query framework covering 21 Arabic keyword families that reflect gendered, plural, formal, and dialectal expressions of recruitment language. The resulting dataset includes posts from institutional, commercial, and individual accounts and provides metadata such as timestamps, engagement indicators, and geolocation when available, enabling temporal and regional analysis of employment discourse. Quantitative analysis reveals several sociolinguistic patterns in online recruitment, including the persistence of gendered hiring language, regional variation in occupational demand, and the emotional framing of recruitment messages. These findings highlight the potential of Arabic social media as a resource for studying labor market communication and linguistic change. The JobArabi corpus, together with documentation and collection scripts, will be released to support research in Arabic NLP, computational social science, and digital labor studies.

The proliferation of large language models has introduced a new paradigm of synthetic political communication in which narratives may be generated, semantically coordinated, and strategically disseminated across platforms at scale. We present a cross-platform framework for detecting synthetic political narratives using four coordination signals -- lexical diversity D(C), temporal burstiness B(C), rhetorical repetition R(C), and semantic homogenization H(C) -- combined into a Synthetic Narrative Coordination Score SNC(C). We apply the framework to a corpus of 353,223 records spanning six geopolitical event windows collected from six Telegram channels and nine Reddit communities (2023--2026). Results show that IntelSlava exhibits the lowest lexical diversity (MATTR 0.52--0.54), the highest burstiness (B=+0.48 to +0.73), and the highest rhetorical overlap with peer channels (Jaccard 0.12), ranking first in the composite SNC(C) on four of six event windows (SNC 0.45--0.60). Rybar ranks last on all windows despite its high semantic homogenization, because its Russian-language output yields high lexical diversity and near-zero rhetorical Jaccard with English-language channels -- demonstrating that no single indicator is sufficient for coordination detection. Multi-dimensional SNC(C) scoring provides a more robust and interpretable signal than any individual metric.

LLMs are increasingly used as ``digital consumers'' to simulate public opinion, pre-test marketing decisions, and anticipate audience response. However, existing evaluations rarely ask whether a model can reconstruct the concrete reaction patterns that real consumers surface in public discourse. We introduce ConsumerSimBench, a benchmark built from 1,553 real Chinese social-media topics and 23,122 atomic, rule-audited criteria spanning four reaction families. Rather than scoring open-ended generations with a holistic preference judge, ConsumerSimBench decomposes each task into auditable yes-no decisions over concrete reaction points, raising three-judge agreement from 65.8% to 92.1% with 98.4% agreement between pointwise judge decisions and human-majority labels. Across 13 frontier generators, the strongest model, Gemini-3.1-Pro, covers only 47.8% of real reaction criteria, while GPT-5.2 and Claude-4.6 trail far behind despite their strength on technical benchmarks. The failures reveal a sharp gap between technical-benchmark performance and socially grounded consumer intuition. A direct structured reasoning prompt decreases coverage, while a generate--reflect multi-agent pipeline improves MiMo-V2.5-Pro from 32.9% to 37.6% on a subset. ConsumerSimBench reframes consumer simulation as a forecasting problem over real public-discourse reactions, showing that frontier LLMs remain far from reliably predicting what consumers will actually care about in high-context Chinese consumer discourse.

This paper introduces a dataset of interlinked multimodal political communications from the Russian government, addressing persistent deficiencies in the availability of social text- and image-based data for authoritarian politics contexts. The dataset comprises two large corpora of official speeches delivered by senior actors within the Kremlin and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs over multiple decades. For each speech, we provide Russian- and English-language texts, associated images and captions where available, and harmonized metadata including (e.g.) dates, speakers, (geo)locations, and official government content tags. Unique identifiers link images to speeches and align Russian and English versions of the same communication texts. We further augment these linked datasets with validated topical annotations for both speech texts and speech images, which are generated via transformer-based multimodal topic modeling and refined by a Russian politics expert. The resulting data resources support multimodal, multilingual, temporal, and/or spatial analyses of (authoritarian) political communication and offer a valuable testbed for social science research and large language model (LLM) applications in political domains.

The relations connecting propositions in discourse such as cause (A because B) or concession (A although B) are a subject of intense interest in Computational Linguistics and Pragmatics, but challenging to study and compare across languages. Recent progress in standardizing discourse relation inventories across datasets offers the potential to facilitate such studies, but is hindered by the complexity of relevant data and the lack of easily accessible interfaces to analyze it. In this paper we present DiscoExplorer, a new open source web interface, capable of running on local computers, which we use to make datasets from the DISRPT Shared Task on discourse relation classification publicly available, covering 16 different languages. We present the query language, search and visualization facilities for relations and signaling devices such as connectives, as well as some example studies.

Polarization in online communities is often studied through either language or interaction structure, but the two views are rarely connected in a unified measurement pipeline. Prior work links them by building interaction graphs from human judgments of agreement and disagreement, leaving a gap between language as observed text and structure as an engineered representation of that text. We address this gap with a language-grounded signed-network pipeline that derives continuous signed edge weights from LLM stance scores and quantifies structural polarization using two complementary measures: a spectral Eigen-Sign score and a partition-based frustration score. After normalization, the two measures show substantial agreement while retaining important differences in their sensitivity to edge magnitude. Applying the framework to Reddit Brexit discussions, we analyze how window-level discourse signals, including toxicity, extreme scalar claims, and perplexity, relate to temporal variation in structural polarization. Edge-level and ablation analyses show that continuous, confidence-weighted signed edges reveal intensity-sensitive patterns that are muted under sign-only representations. We further report an exploratory one-step-ahead forecasting analysis suggesting that lagged language signals may contain information about future polarization beyond structural persistence. Together, the results demonstrate how discourse and signed-network structure can be connected in a single framework for measuring and interpreting polarization dynamics over time.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent political text at scale, raising concerns about synthetic discourse during crises and social conflict. Existing AI-text detection often focuses on sentence-level cues such as perplexity, burstiness, or token irregularities, but these signals may weaken as generative systems improve. We instead adopt a Computational Social Science perspective and ask whether synthetic political discourse behaves like an observed online population. We construct a paired corpus of 1,789,406 posts across nine crisis events: COVID-19, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections, Dobbs/Roe v. Wade, the 2020 BLM protests, U.S. midterms, the Utah shooting, and the U.S.-Iran war. For each event, we compare observed discourse from social platforms with synthetic discourse generated for the same context. We evaluate four dimensions: emotional intensity, structural regularity, lexical-ideological framing, and cross-event dependency, using mean gaps and dispersion evidence. Across events, synthetic discourse is fluent but population-level unrealistic. It is generally more negative and less dispersed in sentiment, structurally more regular, and lexically more abstract than observed discourse. Observed discourse instead shows broader emotional variation, longer-tailed structural distributions, and more context-specific, colloquial lexical markers. These differences are event-dependent: larger for fast-moving, decentralized crises and smaller for formal or institutionally mediated events. We summarize them with a simple event-level measure, the Caricature Gap. Our findings suggest that the main limitation of synthetic political discourse is not grammar or fluency, but reduced population realism. Population-level auditing complements traditional text-detection and provides a CSS framework for evaluating the social realism of generated discourse.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and agentic systems are moving software engineering from code-centric production toward intent-centric human-agent work in which natural language, repository context, tools, tests, and governance shape delivery. Prior studies examine code generation, AI pair programming, and software engineering agents, but less is known about how public technical discourse and peer-reviewed evidence together frame the profession's near-term transition. This study addresses that gap through a reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) dominant and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) informed public-discourse and document analysis. The corpus combines peer-reviewed software engineering and AI literature, technical benchmarks, public talks and interviews, essays, product-facing technical announcements, and X-originated discourse from prominent AI and software engineering voices. Sources were organized through a corpus register, codebook, coding matrix, theme-to-source traceability table, DOI/reference audit, and reproducibility protocol. The analysis shows that GenAI lowers the cost of producing plausible code while increasing the importance of intent specification, context curation, architecture knowledge, verification, security, provenance, governance, and accountable human judgment. The findings indicate that software engineering is becoming less about isolated code authorship and more about supervising, validating, and governing socio-technical systems of humans, agents, tools, and evidence gates. This matters because speed-focused adoption can accumulate hidden technical debt and accountability gaps, whereas bounded autonomy can preserve quality, security, maintainability, and trust.