Discourse

This article revisits the syntax of imperatives in Yemeni Arabic proposing an Agree acros phases (AAP) approach. I argue that the AAP approach successfully accounts for both simple and complex imperative constructions, including A'-chain structures, by establishing a close interactions between syntax and discourse. The study demonstrates that this interface is motivated by the interpretive and performative functions associated with imperatives, linking informational structure with propositional structure. It is also proposed that the thematic subject of imperatives is a 2-person pro, whereas any overt pronominal or nominal element occurring preverbally is not a subject, but rather a C-domain element, precisely aboutness topic. These topics serve as the logical subjects of imperatives and enter into a coreferentiality relationship with pro. This relation is analyzed as APP involving Match, yielding both local and non-local A'-chains. For core imperatives, viz., lacking an overt topic, I propose a null topic to (re)merge in Spec,TopP, whose interpretation depends on the discourse.

Philosophical accounts of persuasion often assume that shared evidence and rational argumentation should lead to a convergence of views between peers, yet everyday discourse often suggests otherwise. In this study, we use large language models to analyze a corpus of debates on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView, where belief revision is publicly signaled. Large language models were asked, halfway through each discussion, to forecast whether such an acknowledgement would arise; their probabilistic estimates serve as a conversational baseline. Each reply was then coded, through a hybrid machine-assisted procedure, for ten familiar rhetorical strategies -- concession, empathy, logical challenge, credibility appeals, and so forth. Adding these strategic features markedly improves predictive power and yields a consistent pattern: moves that express concession or empathetic alignment substantially increase the prospect of belief change, whereas frontal refutation, credibility attacks, and topic deflection diminish it. The findings indicate that effective public reasoning depends as much on relational framing as on evidential content, and they invite a refinement of normative accounts of rational dialogue.

Semantic segmentation is a core component of discourse analysis, yet existing models are primarily developed and evaluated on high-resource written text, limiting their effectiveness on low-resource spoken varieties. In particular, dialectal Arabic exhibits informal syntax, code-switching, and weakly marked discourse structure that challenge standard segmentation approaches. In this paper, we introduce a new multi-genre benchmark (more than 1000 samples) for semantic segmentation in conversational Arabic, focusing on dialectal discourse. The benchmark covers transcribed casual telephone conversations, code-switched podcasts, broadcast news, and expressive dialogue from novels, and was annotated and validated by native Arabic annotators. Using this benchmark, we show that segmentation models performing well on MSA news genres degrade on dialectal transcribed speech. We further propose a segmentation model that targets local semantic coherence and robustness to discourse discontinuities, consistently outperforming strong baselines on dialectal non-news genres. The benchmark and approach generalize to other low-resource spoken languages.

Understanding how online narratives travel through coalitions is critical for identifying information disorder, yet computational analyses often rely on conservative network constructions that erase initially sparse but salient signals. This paper proposes a novel multi-layer framework that captures low-frequency signals of emerging information disorder allowing for locating where online discourse is reframed and amplified over time. The use case is 14 years of Italian discourse on X regarding the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine across three pivotal epochs (2010-2024). Utilizing hashtag co-occurrence networks, we introduce a dual-layer approach. We first identify robust core discourse coalitions through conservative community detection, revealing a stable prevention-oriented backbone contrasted with increasingly separable skepticism coalitions. We then introduce a coverage layer and project fringe hashtags into core coalitions based on weighted connectivity. Using a manually labelled set of skeptical and conspiratorial seed tweets, we demonstrate that this core-coverage projection significantly improves the recovery of long-tail, problematic hashtags while preserving an interpretable coalition structure. Our findings characterize the structural maturation of polarized narratives and provide a methodology for mapping how discourse is reframed and amplified by information disorder over time.

Information disorder is a challenging phenomenon that affects society at large. This phenomenon entails the diffusion of misleading, misinforming, and hateful content online. In different contexts, one aspect of the problem may prevail, but overall, this is a broad problem that requires comprehensive solutions. While each dimension of the problem (hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, etc.) requires in-depth analysis, in this paper, we look into the possibility of argument structure to provide relevant information to link these different areas of the problem. In particular, we focus on the WSF-ARG+ dataset, which consists of white supremacy forum messages annotated in terms of argument structure (premises and conclusion). There, we leverage the checkworthiness and hatefulness annotations of the argument components to obtain insights into the hatefulness of the whole message. Our results show promising insights (up to 96% F1), indicating the possibility of extending this direction in the future to tackle hateful content identification and information disorder countering.

This discussion paper reflects on how quantitative approaches to historical linguistics interact with dataset properties. Drawing on two worked examples, we examine English data using quad-based concept modelling of Early Modern English discourse in EEBO-TCP (c. 1470s-1690s; 765M words) alongside SynFlow analysis of scientific writing in Royal Society Corpus 6.0.4 (1750-1799; drawn from a 78.6M-token open corpus). Through parallel comparison, the paper explores how each approach operationalises concepts, the data assumptions they entail, and the diachronic interpretations they support. We argue that comparative methodological reflection clarifies the limits of purely lexical, frequency-based approaches and highlights how dataset structure shapes the kinds of semantic change that quantitative methods can reliably detect.

Conversational Aspect-based Sentiment Quadruple Analysis (DiaASQ) needs to capture the complex interrelationships in multiple rounds of dialogues. Existing methods usually employ simple Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN), which introduce structural noise and fail to consider the temporal sequence of the dialogues, or use standard RoPE, which implicitly captures relative distances in a flat sequence but cannot clearly separate the token-level syntactic order from the utterance-level progression, and may suffer from the Distance Dilution problem. To address these issues, we propose a new framework that combines Thread-Constrained Directed Acyclic Graph (TC-DAG) and Discourse-Aware Rotary Position Embedding (D-RoPE). Specifically, TC-DAG filters out cross-thread noise based on thread constraints, maintains global connectivity through root anchoring, and incorporates the temporal sequence of the dialogues. D-RoPE aligns multi-layer semantics using dual-stream projection and multi-scale frequency signals, captures thread dependencies using tree-like distances, and alleviates the token-level Distance Dilution problem by incorporating utterance-level progressions. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that our framework achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Understanding how people argue across ideological divides online is important for studying political polarization, misinformation, and content moderation. Existing datasets capture only part of this problem: some preserve text but ignore interaction structure, some model structure without rich semantics, and others represent conversations without stable user-level ideological identity. We introduce ControBench, a benchmark for controversial discourse analysis that combines heterogeneous social interaction graphs with rich textual semantics. Built from Reddit discussions on three topics, Trump, abortion, and religion, ControBench contains 7,370 users, 1,783 posts, and 26,525 interactions. The graph contains user and post nodes connected by semantically enriched edges; in particular, user-comment-user edges encode both a reply and the parent comment that it responds to, preserving local argumentative context. User labels are derived from self-declared Reddit flairs, providing a scalable proxy for ideological identity without manual annotation. The resulting datasets exhibit low or negative adjusted homophily (Trump: -0.77, Abortion: 0.06, Religion: 0.04), reflecting the cross-cutting structure of real-world debate. We evaluate graph neural networks, pretrained language models, and large language models on ControBench and observe distinct performance patterns across topics and model families, especially when ideological boundaries are ambiguous. These results position ControBench as a challenging and realistic benchmark for controversial discourse analysis.

How people narrate their experiences offers a window into how the mind organizes them. Computational approaches to therapeutic writing have evolved from lexical counting to neural methods, yet remain fragmented: dictionary tools miss discourse structure, while embeddings conflate local coherence with global organization. No existing framework maps these techniques onto the hierarchical processes through which narratives are constructed. Here we introduce a three-level framework - micro-level lexical features, meso-level semantic embeddings, and macro-level LLM narrative evaluation - and show, across 830 Chinese therapeutic texts spanning depression, anxiety, and trauma, that macro-level evaluation substantially outperforms lexical and embedding features for mental health prediction. This challenges the field's emphasis on word-counting: formal structural features (Labov's story grammar, RST coherence, propositional composition) demonstrate that narrative organization per se carries predictive signal, while clinically-grounded narrative dimensions capture how psychological states are expressed through discourse. Semantic embeddings add minimal independent value but yield incremental gains in multi-level classification. By grounding computational levels in discourse processing theory, this framework identifies macro-structural organization as the primary locus of clinical signal and generates testable hypotheses for intervention design and longitudinal research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can strongly shape social discourse, yet datasets investigating how LLM outputs vary across controlled social and contextual prompting remain sparse. Cognitive Digital Shadows (CDS) is a 190,000-record synthetic corpus supporting analyses of LLM-generated discourse. Each CDS record is generated by one of 19 LLMs, prompted to shadow either a human persona or an AI-assistant role. CDS contains LLM responses on 4 controversial societal topics: vaccines/healthcare, social media disinformation, the gender gap in science, and STEM stereotypes. Persona-conditioned records encode 17 sociodemographic and psychological attributes, providing data linking LLMs' prompts, language, stances and reasoning. Texts are validated for topic anchoring and can support emotional analyses via interpretable NLP (e.g. textual forma mentis networks). CDS is enriched by a pooling platform with user-friendly dashboards, enabling easy, interactive group-level comparisons of emotional and semantic framing across personas, topics and models. The CDS prompting framework supports future audits of LLMs' bias, social sensitivity and alignment.

Text-to-Image (T2I) models have shown promising utility across various domains. However, such models are also amplifying harmful societal biases in their outputs. In the context of South Asia, recent work has shown caste biases and stereotypes are being perpetuated through Generative AI (GenAI) systems. While this research offers extremely relevant insight into invisibilized narratives of caste discrimination through the GenAI system, they often treat caste as an identity category. Therefore, in this work we shift our ontology to focus on the relational aspect of caste. This enables us to develop a more nuanced understanding of the mechanics of caste discrimination by and through T2I models. Combining an algorithmic audit with critical discourse analysis, we draw on a conceptual frame challenging Brahminical Normativity to show how caste biases are perpetuated beyond the simple binaries of upper vs lower-caste categories. Our contributions are two-fold. Beyond challenging the categorical understanding of caste as a category, we propose an anti-caste approach to tackle the issue of caste bias and fairness in AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) reveal inherent and distinctive personas through dialogue. However, most existing persona discovery approaches rely on surface-level lexical or stylistic cues, treating dialogue as a flat sequence of tokens and failing to capture the deeper discourse-level structures that sustain persona consistency. To address this limitation, we propose a novel analytical framework that interprets LLM dialogue through bridging inference -- implicit conceptual relations that connect utterances via shared world knowledge and discourse coherence. By modeling these relations as structured knowledge graphs, our approach captures latent semantic links that govern how LLMs organize meaning across turns, enabling persona discovery at the level of discourse coherence rather than surface realizations. Experimental results across multiple reasoning backbones and target LLMs, ranging from small-scale models to 80B-parameter systems, demonstrate that bridging-inference graphs yield significantly stronger semantic coherence and more stable persona identification than frequency or style-based baselines. These results show that persona traits are consistently encoded in the structural organization of discourse rather than isolated lexical patterns. This work presents a systematic framework for probing, extracting, and visualizing latent LLM personas through the lens of Cognitive Discourse Theory, bridging computational linguistics, cognitive semantics, and persona reasoning in large language models. Codes are available at https://github.com/JiSoo-Yang/Persona_Bridging.git

Social media platforms have become primary channels for health information in the Global South. Using gomutra (cow urine) discourse on YouTube in India as a case study, we present a post-facto Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted discourse analysis of 30 multilingual transcripts showing that promotional content blends sacred traditional language with pseudo-scientific claims in ways that sophisticated debunking content itself mirrors, creating a rhetorical register that LLMs, trained predominantly on Western corpora, are systematically ill-equipped to analyse. Varying prompt tone across three LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.1), we find that culturally embedded health misinformation does not look like ordinary misinformation, and this cultural obfuscation extends to gendered rhetoric and prompt design, compounding analytical unreliability. Our findings argue that cultural competency in LLM-assisted discourse analysis cannot be retrofitted through prompt engineering alone.

Analyses of legislative behavior often rely on voting records, overlooking the rich semantic and rhetorical content of political speech. In this paper, we ask three complementary questions about parliamentary discourse: how things are said, what is being said, and who is speaking in discursively similar ways. To answer these questions, we introduce a scalable and generalizable computational framework that combines diachronic stylometric analysis, contextual topic modeling, and semantic clustering of deputies' speeches. We apply this framework to a large-scale case study of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, using a corpus of over 450,000 speeches from 2003 to 2025. Our results show a long-term stylistic shift toward shorter and more direct speeches, a legislative agenda that reorients sharply in response to national crises, and a granular map of discursive alignments in which regional and gender identities often prove more salient than formal party affiliation. More broadly, this work offers a robust methodology for analyzing parliamentary discourse as a multidimensional phenomenon that complements traditional vote-based approaches.

Social media platforms have become primary arenas for climate communication, generating millions of images and posts that - if systematically analysed - can reveal which communication strategies mobilise public concern and which fall flat. We aim to facilitate such research by analysing how computer vision methods can be used for social media discourse analysis. This analysis includes application-based taxonomy design, model selection, prompt engineering, and validation. We benchmark six promptable vision-language models and 15 zero-shot CLIP-like models on two datasets from X (formerly Twitter) - a 1,038-image expert-annotated set and a larger corpus of over 1.2 million images, with 50,000 labels manually validated - spanning five annotation dimensions: animal content, climate change consequences, climate action, image setting, and image type. Among the models benchmarked, Gemini-3.1-flash-lite outperforms all others across all super-categories and both datasets, while the gap to open-weight models of moderate size remains relatively small. Beyond instance-level metrics, we advocate for distributional evaluation: VLM predictions can reliably recover population level trends even when per-image accuracy is moderate, making them a viable starting point for discourse analysis at scale. We find that chain-of-thought reasoning reduces rather than improves performance, and that annotation dimension specific prompt design improves performance. We release tweet IDs and labels along with our code at https://github.com/KathPra/Codebooks2VLMs.git.

Analyzing the reasoning patterns of students in science classrooms is critical for understanding knowledge construction mechanism and improving instructional practice to maximize cognitive engagement, yet manual coding of classroom discourse at scale remains prohibitively labor-intensive. We present an automated discourse analysis system (ADAS) that jointly classifies teacher and student utterances along two complementary dimensions: Utterance Type and Reasoning Component derived from our prior CDAT framework. To address severe label imbalance among minority classes, we (1) stratify-resplit the annotated corpus, (2) apply LLM-based synthetic data augmentation targeting minority classes, and (3) train a dual-probe head RoBERTa-base classifier. A zero-shot GPT-5.4 baseline achieves macro-F1 of 0.467 on UT and 0.476 on RC, establishing meaningful upper bounds for prompt-only approaches motivating fine-tuning. Beyond classification, we conduct discourse pattern analyses including UTxRC co-occurrence profiling, Cognitive Complexity Index (CCI) computation per session, lag-sequential analysis, and IRF chain analysis, revealing that teacher Feedback-with-Question (Fq) moves are the most consistent antecedents of student inferential reasoning (SR-I). Our results demonstrate that LLM-based augmentation meaningfully improves UT minority-class recognition, and that the structural simplicity of the RC task makes it tractable even for lexical baselines.

This paper examines the strategic use of language in contemporary artificial intelligence (AI) discourse, focusing on the widespread adoption of metaphorical or colloquial terms like "hallucination", "chain-of-thought", "introspection", "language model", "alignment", and "agent". We argue that many such terms exhibit strategic polysemy: they sustain multiple interpretations simultaneously, combining narrow technical definitions with broader anthropomorphic or common-sense associations. In contemporary AI research and deployment contexts, this semantic flexibility produces significant institutional and discursive effects, shaping how AI systems are understood by researchers, policymakers, funders, and the public. To analyse this phenomenon, we introduce the concept of glosslighting: the practice of using technically redefined terms to evoke intuitive -- often anthropomorphic or misleading -- associations while preserving plausible deniability through restricted technical definitions. Glosslighting enables actors to benefit from the persuasive force of familiar language while maintaining the ability to retreat to narrower definitions when challenged. We argue that this practice contributes to AI hype cycles, facilitates the mobilisation of investment and institutional support, and influences public and policy perceptions of AI systems, while often deflecting epistemic and ethical scrutiny. By examining the linguistic dynamics of glosslighting and strategic polysemy, the paper highlights how language itself functions as a sociotechnical mechanism shaping the development and governance of AI.

Understanding the intricate dynamics of online discourse depends on large-scale deliberation data, a resource that remains scarce across interactive web platforms due to restrictive accessibility policies, ethical concerns and inconsistent data quality. In this paper, we propose Chorus, an agentic framework, which orchestrates LLM-powered actors with behaviorally consistent personas to generate realistic deliberation discussions. Each actor is governed by an autonomous agent equipped with memory of the evolving discussion, while participation timing is governed by a principled Poisson process-based temporal model, which approximates the heterogeneous engagement patterns of real users. The framework is further supported by structured tool usage, enabling actors to access external resources and facilitating integration with interactive web platforms. The framework was deployed on the \textsc{Deliberate} platform and evaluated by 30 expert participants across three dimensions: content realism, discussion coherence and analytical utility, confirming Chorus as a practical tool for generating high-quality deliberation data suitable for online discourse analysis

The pursuit of truth is central to democratic deliberation and governance, yet political discourse reflects varying epistemic orientations, ranging from evidence-based reasoning grounded in verifiable information to intuition-based reasoning rooted in beliefs and subjective interpretation. We introduce a scalable approach to measure epistemic orientation using the Evidence--Minus--Intuition (EMI) score, derived from large language model (LLM) ratings and embedding-based semantic similarity. Applying this approach to 15 million parliamentary speech segments spanning 1946 to 2025 across seven countries, we examine temporal patterns in discourse and its association with deliberative democracy and governance. We find that EMI is positively associated with deliberative democracy within countries over time, with consistent relationships in both contemporaneous and lagged analyses. EMI is also positively associated with the transparency and predictable implementation of laws as a dimension of governance. These findings suggest that the epistemic nature of political discourse is crucial for both the quality of democracy and governance.

Understanding a discourse requires tracking entities and the relations that hold between them. While Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on relational reasoning, the mechanism by which they bind entities, relations, and attributes remains unclear. We study discourse-level relational binding and show that LLMs encode it via a Cell-based Binding Representation (CBR): a low-dimensional linear subspace in which each ``cell'' corresponds to an entity--relation index pair, and bound attributes are retrieved from the corresponding cell during inference. Using controlled multi-sentence data annotated with entity and relation indices, we identify the CBR subspace by decoding these indices from attribute-token activations with Partial Least Squares regression. Across domains and two model families, the indices are linearly decodable and form a grid-like geometry in the projected space. We further find that context-specific CBR representations are related by translation vectors in activation space, enabling cross-context transfer. Finally, activation patching shows that manipulating this subspace systematically changes relational predictions and that perturbing it disrupts performance, providing causal evidence that LLMs rely on CBR for relational binding.

Summarizing deeply nested discussion threads requires handling interleaved replies, quotes, and overlapping topics, which standard LLM summarizers struggle to capture reliably. We introduce ThreadSumm, a multi-stage LLM framework that treats thread summarization as a hierarchical reasoning problem over explicit aspect and content unit representations. Our method first performs content planning via LLM-based extraction of discourse aspects and Atomic Content Units, then applies sentence ordering to construct thread-aware sequences that surface multiple viewpoints rather than a single linear strand. On top of these interpretable units, ThreadSumm employs a Tree of Thoughts search that generates and scores multiple paragraph candidates, jointly optimizing coherence and coverage within a unified search space. With this multi-proposal and iterative refinement design, we show improved performance in generating logically structured summaries compared to existing baselines, while achieving higher aspect retention and opinion coverage in nested discussions.

We present a methodological framework to discover linguistic and discursive patterns associated to different social groups through contrastive synthetic text generation and statistical analysis. In contrast with previous approaches, we aim to characterize subtle expressions of bias, instead of diagnosing bias through a pre-determined list of words or expressions. We are also working with contextualized data instead of isolated words or sentences. Our methodology applies to textual productions in any genre, encompassing narrative, task-oriented or dialogic. Contextualized data are generated using controlled combinations of situational scenarios and group markers, creating minimal pairs of texts that differ only in the referenced group while maintaining comparable narrative conditions. To facilitate robust analysis, linguistic forms are generalized and associations between linguistic abstractions and groups are quantified using a variant of pointwise mutual information to detect expressions that appear disproportionately across groups. A fragment-ranking strategy then prioritizes text segments with a high concentration of biased linguistic signals, which allows for experts to assess the harmful potential of linguistic expressions in context, bridging quantitative analysis and qualitative interpretation.

LLMbench is a browser-based workbench for the comparative close reading of large language model (LLM) outputs. Where existing tools for LLM comparison, such as Google PAIR's LLM Comparator are engineered for quantitative evaluation and user-rating metrics, LLMbench is oriented towards the hermeneutic practices of the digital humanities. Two model responses to the same prompt are side by side in annotatable panels with four analytical overlays (Probabilities for token-level log-probability inspection, Differences for word-level diff across the two panels, Tone for Hyland-style metadiscourse analysis, and Structure for sentence-level parsing with discourse connective highlighting), alongside five analytical modes, Stochastic Variation, Temperature Gradient, Prompt Sensitivity, Token Probabilities, and Cross-Model Divergence, that make the probabilistic structure of generated text legible at the token level. The tool treats the generated text as a research object in its own right from a probability distribution, a text that could have been otherwise, and provides visualisations including continuous heatmaps, entropy sparklines, pixel maps, and three-dimensional probability terrains, that show the counterfactual history from which each word emerged. This paper describes the tool's architecture, its six modes, and its design rationale, and argues that log-probability data, currently underused in humanistic and social-scientific readings of AI, is an important resource for a critical studies of generative AI models.

We introduce DiscoTrace, a method to identify the rhetorical strategies answerers use when responding to information-seeking questions. DiscoTrace represents answers as a sequence of question-related discourse acts paired with interpretations of the original question, annotated on top of rhetorical structure theory parses. Applying DiscoTrace to answers from nine different communities reveals that communities have diverse preferences for answer construction. In contrast, LLMs do not exhibit rhetorical diversity in their answers, even when prompted to mimic specific human community answering guidelines. LLMs also systematically opt for breadth, addressing interpretations of questions that human answerers choose not to address. The rich, community-sensitive answering behavior structurally revealed by DiscoTrace can guide the development of pragmatic LLM answerers that are more attuned to contextual information needs.

Hate, derogatory, and offensive speech remains a persistent challenge in online platforms and public discourse. While automated detection systems are widely used, most focus on censorship or removal, raising concerns for transparency and freedom of expression, and limiting opportunities to explain why content is harmful. To address these issues, explanatory approaches have emerged as a promising solution, aiming to make hate speech detection more transparent, accountable, and informative. In this paper, we present a hybrid approach that combines Large Language Models (LLMs) with three newly created and curated vocabularies to detect and explain hate speech in English, French, and Greek. Our system captures both inherently derogatory expressions tied to identity characteristics and direct group-targeted content through two complementary pipelines: one that detects and disambiguates problematic terms using the curated vocabularies, and one that leverages LLMs as context-aware evaluators of group-targeting content. The outputs are fused into grounded explanations that clarify why content is flagged. Human evaluation shows that our hybrid approach is accurate, with high-quality explanations, outperforming LLM-only baselines.

We present SemEval-2026 Task 9, a shared task on online polarization detection, covering 22 languages and comprising over 110K annotated instances. Each data instance is multi-labeled with the presence of polarization, polarization type, and polarization manifestation. Participants were asked to predict labels in three sub-tasks: (1) detecting the presence of polarization, (2) identifying the type of polarization, and (3) recognizing the polarization manifestation. The three tasks attracted over 1,000 participants worldwide and more than 10k submission on Codabench. We received final submissions from 67 teams and 73 system description papers. We report the baseline results and analyze the performance of the best-performing systems, highlighting the most common approaches and the most effective methods across different subtasks and languages. The dataset of this task is publicly available.

Actor-level stance detection aims to determine an author expressed position toward specific geopolitical actors mentioned or implicated in a text. Although transformer-based models have achieved relatively good performance in stance classification, they typically rely on unified representations that may not sufficiently capture heterogeneous linguistic signals, such as contrastive discourse structures, framing cues, and salient lexical indicators. This motivates the need for adaptive architectures that explicitly model diverse stance-expressive patterns. In this paper, we propose StanceMoE, a context-enhanced Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture built upon a fine-tuned BERT encoder for actor-level stance detection. Our model integrates six expert modules designed to capture complementary linguistic signals, including global semantic orientation, salient lexical cues, clause-level focus, phrase-level patterns, framing indicators, and contrast-driven discourse shifts. A context-aware gating mechanism dynamically weights expert contributions, enabling adaptive routing based on input characteristics. Experiments are conducted on the StanceNakba 2026 Subtask A dataset, comprising 1,401 annotated English texts where the target actor is implicit in the text. StanceMoE achieves a macro-F1 score of 94.26%, outperforming traditional baselines, and alternative BERT-based variants.

Climate discourse online shapes public understanding of climate change and informs political and policy debate, yet it unfolds across structurally different environments: paid advertising platforms host targeted, institutionally produced messaging, while public social media reflects largely organic, user-driven discussion. We present a comparative analysis of climate discourse across paid advertisements on Meta (previously Facebook) and public posts on Bluesky from July 2024 to September 2025. To support it, we develop an interpretable thematic discovery pipeline that clusters texts by semantic similarity and uses large language models (LLMs) to label clusters with concise, human-interpretable themes, requiring no predefined topic inventory or seed set. Using these themes, we find the two environments diverge systematically: paid advertising centers on strategic promotion of specific solutions in a formal, forward-looking register, whereas organic discourse centers on systemic critique in a crisis-oriented, scientifically grounded one. We also evaluate the utility of the discovered themes through downstream stance prediction and theme-guided retrieval tasks. While our analysis focuses on climate communication, the framework generalizes to comparative thematic analysis across heterogeneous communication environments.

Social media platforms such as Twitter (now X) provide rich data for analyzing public discourse, especially during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the brevity, informality, and noise of social media short texts often hinder the effectiveness of traditional topic modeling, producing incoherent or redundant topics that are often difficult to interpret. To address these challenges, we have developed \emph{TM-Rephrase}, a model-agnostic framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to rephrase raw tweets into more standardized and formal language prior to topic modeling. Using a dataset of 25,027 COVID-19-related Twitter posts, we investigate the effects of two rephrasing strategies, general- and colloquial-to-formal-rephrasing, on multiple topic modeling methods. Results demonstrate that \emph{TM-Rephrase} improves three metrics measuring topic modeling performance (i.e., topic coherence, topic uniqueness, and topic diversity) while reducing topic redundancy of most topic modeling algorithms, with the colloquial-to-formal strategy yielding the greatest performance gains and especially for the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) algorithm. This study contributes to a model-agnostic approach to enhancing topic modeling in public health related social media analysis, with broad implications for improved understanding of public discourse in health crisis as well as other important domains.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce reasoning traces with non-linear structures, such as backtracking and self-correction, that complicate the evaluation and monitoring of the reasoning process. We introduce ReasoningFlow, a framework that captures the discourse structures of LRM reasoning traces into fine-grained directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We develop and validate our annotation schema through careful manual annotation of 31 traces (2.1k steps), achieving high inter-annotator agreement, then scale to automatic annotation of 1,260 traces (247.7k steps) spanning three tasks (math, science, argumentation) and five models (Qwen2.5-32B-Inst, QwQ-32B, DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1, GPT-oss-120B). By analyzing ReasoningFlow graphs, we find: (1) LRMs exhibit structurally similar traces, despite being trained from different base models and potentially non-overlapping post-training data. (2) ReasoningFlow reveals diverse fine-grained reasoning behaviors (e.g., local verification, self-reflection, and assumptions) that can be used for better reasoning trace monitorability. (3) In LRMs, most of the erroneous steps are not used to derive final answers. (4) Mechanistic causal dependencies between steps do not reflect the language-level discourse structure. We release the dataset and code in: https://github.com/jinulee-v/reasoningflow.