Rhetoric

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in applications involving interaction between agents, where their output plays a role in collective reasoning and decision-making processes. Despite significant research into the functioning of LLMs in such multi-agent systems, the processes of bias propagation in such systems are still a challenge. This work studies how biased opinions are propagated in the form of textual interaction in an environment of LLMs, in which a minority of agents maintain persistent extreme opinions, while the remaining agents iteratively update their beliefs through structured textual interactions. The findings show that even the presence of a small percentage of biased agents in such a system leads to significant shifts in the opinions of non-biased agents. It suggests that for the same percentage of biased agents, the shifts occur more quickly for the Llama~3.2 model when compared to a classical Friedkin-Johnsen (FJ) model. Further semantic analysis demonstrates that rhetorical consistency in textual explanations increases systematically with biased exposure and, importantly, is partially decoupled from numerical convergenumericalutral agents adopt the vocabulary employed by the biased agents even in configurations where their numerical opinion shifts remain moderate. The research helps explain how bias and language develop together in multi-agent language model ecosystems.

Recent advances in large language models have transformed human-computer interaction. Despite their fluency, these models often produce texts that are grammatically correct but semantically incoherent, containing contradictions or disruptions in logical flow. This work investigates whether enriching text with syntactic and rhetorical information can improve incoherence prediction. Our experiments and analysis show that plain texts achieved higher accuracy because the added information was structurally and syntactically incompatible with the language model's architecture. Additionally, to demonstrate the practical importance of coherence assessment, we performed zero-shot experiments on a Brazilian disinformation dataset, suggesting that textual coherence can serve as a proxy for detecting misleading content. Code and models are available at https://github.com/ittozzamV/cohereclassifier.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

This paper presents a multi-branch fusion framework for detecting and characterising the propagation of health misinformation in online social networks (OSNs). Grounded in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), the model fuses transformer-based semantics with rhetorical cues, stance representations, and psychologically motivated proxies in a unified multi-task architecture. In addition to binary classification, we introduce the Cognitive Propagation Score (CPS), an interpretable post-hoc auxiliary score computed from psychologically motivated, text-derived cues capturing argument complexity, emotional intensity, and content-derived virality potential, to support diffusion-risk reasoning when engagement ground truth is incomplete or unavailable. Experiments on three benchmark datasets, Constraint, COVID--19_FNIR, and Monkeypox, show strong classification performance, achieving ROC--AUC up to 0.9999 on COVID--19_FNIR, while propagation-oriented ranking achieves near-perfect agreement when engagement-derived supervision is available (Monkeypox, Spearman's $ρ= 0.9952$) and similarly high ranking alignment under proxy-based supervision on COVID--19_FNIR ($ρ= 0.9954$). Compared with representative literature baselines, the fusion model improves detection on Constraint and COVID--19_FNIR, while Monkeypox remains more challenging, reflecting domain- and signal-specific differences. Ablation analysis further indicates that psychological and rhetorical branches provide complementary gains beyond semantic embeddings. Overall, the framework bridges cognitive theory and neural modelling to improve transparency and to support scalable misinformation monitoring, with future work required to validate CPS against human-centred diffusion judgements.

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

This paper documents an applied natural-language-processing framework for measuring the tone of Brazilian Monetary Policy Committee (Copom) statements. The project is explicitly inspired by iSent, Itaú's Central Bank sentiment classifier, particularly its sentence-level division of official communication into hawkish, dovish, neutral, and out-of-context classes. The implementation extends that idea in three directions. First, an LLM identifies short hawkish and dovish expressions and assigns each a 0-to-1 intensity weight. Second, the document index combines sentence counts with document-specific average signal intensities, producing a bounded score from -1 to 1. Third, a separate full-document layer measures forward-guidance direction, guidance explicitness, uncertainty level, and change in uncertainty. The empirical sample is restricted to communications dated August 2016 or later and contains 80 statements and 1,498 classified sentences from August 31, 2016 through August 5, 2026. Across this sample, 33.3% of sentences are hawkish, 18.0% dovish, 42.1% neutral, and 6.5% out of context. The average document score is +0.107, while the most hawkish reading is +0.570 in August 2021. The latest statement, dated August 5, 2026, scores +0.232, with eight hawkish, two dovish, and nine neutral sentences. Its structural overlay is more nuanced: guidance is directionally ambiguous but partly explicit, while uncertainty is classified as central and higher than at the prior meeting. Tone and the guidance-direction score have a contemporaneous Pearson correlation of 0.719. These are descriptive outputs, not a validated forecast of Selic decisions or DI returns. The main contribution is therefore methodological: a transparent, incremental, auditable system that separates rhetorical tone from policy guidance and uncertainty.

The spread of misinformation is widely perceived as a threat to democratic deliberation, yet how political elites' rhetorical commitments to truth shift alongside the rise of populist actors remains poorly understood. Analysing 4.5 million tweets and 59,170 parliamentary speeches by German political elites between 2015 and 2025, we measure evidence-based and intuition-based rhetoric using a validated distributed dictionary representation. Across both arenas, intuition-based language has become more prominent, and right-leaning actors consistently exhibit the lowest Evidence Minus Intuition (EMI) scores. The parliamentary entry of the extreme-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in 2017 coincides with sharp downward shifts in EMI across the broader chamber, while a more gradual decline is observed on Twitter. These findings document an association between far-right visibility and a changing approach to truth in elite discourse in a multiparty European democracy.

Automation of Translation Quality Estimation (QE) has emerged as a widely discussed approach to managing translation quality at scale, and a growing number of tools and technologies have been released in pursuit of this goal. However, the proliferation of new QE systems has not always been accompanied by robust, transparent, and reproducible research and testing. This gap deserves critical scrutiny. This paper examines some fundamental limitations of the QE technology from both theoretical and empirical perspectives, arguing that current QE systems are structurally ill-equipped to serve as reliable standalone tools in real-world translation workflows. The reviewed evidence suggests that QE suffers from a range of interrelated and largely unresolved limitations. Most fundamentally, the evaluation of the quality of translation at the level of isolated segments is problematic because it tends to miss out on cohesion, coherence, and stylistic and rhetorical text features. In addition, empirical research documents several other limitations and flaws, including failure to generalize, systematic biases, overfitting and distribution collapse, performance gaps, error annotation challenges, and data scarcity. These are structural limitations arising from the complexity of human language and translation as a cognitive and communicative act - limitations that more data and better architectures have so far not overcome. Consequently, segment-level QE scores should not be used as a standalone basis for routing, release, or review bypass in production; we argue future work should focus on automating human evaluation grounded in MQM.

A rhetorical figure that Cicero and Quintilian catalogued two thousand years ago reappears, systematically, in the text of large language models: epanorthosis, the self-correction of the specimen «This is not a course. It is a journey of transformation». This essay argues that the overuse is a trained disposition, driven mainly by a training distribution rich in promotional prose and by preference tuning (RLHF) that rewards confident, emphatic phrasing; the left-to-right nature of generation is an amplifier rather than the root cause. Building on evidence that models diverge from human rhetorical style, and on Fontanier's classification of epanorthosis as a figure of thought, it sets out a programme that scores the figure against genre-specific human baselines through an Epanorthosis Index (density relative to the human rate). A first measurement, on three sizes of one instruction-tuned model family, finds mis-calibration by register in both directions: the models overshoot in oratory (about twofold, near threefold in Italian, concentrated in the larger tiers) and undershoot in informal question-and-answer writing, while matching humans in argument, journalism, and encyclopedic prose. Three constructive contributions follow: a survey of mitigation techniques centred on lightweight LoRA adapters; a demonstration, in Italian, that a one-line instruction cuts the figure by half to nearly three-quarters and that a supervised-fine-tuning adapter removes it almost entirely, with a scaling coefficient that dials the reduction back onto the human rate; and the argument that the target is calibration to the human rate for each genre, not elimination. It closes on the stakes: the real risk is that we begin to write like the machines.

Prior work on AI-assisted information evaluation has largely focused on what AI systems communicate, comparing explanation types and formats, with responses predominantly cast in directive rhetoric where the system delivers a verdict and the user passively accepts it. While debate-style interactions have recently shown promise in prompting critical evaluation over deference, the rhetorical patterns that structure AI responses and how they might induce reflection, uncertainty, or independent reasoning remain largely unexamined. To address this, we investigated eight rhetorical patterns known to induce contemplation: Intentional Misleading, Interpretive Alternative, Scaffold Explanation, Triggering Distrust, Information Distortion, Alternative Framing, Socratic Questioning, and an Oracle baseline. Through a within-subject study with n=98 participants on a hint-on-demand fact verification task, we observed preliminary evidence that Scaffold Explanation were associated with the highest accuracy gains, and encouraging deeper reflection. Surprisingly, the adversarial conditions also improved accuracy modestly. Participants preferred Alternative Framing most and Interpretive Alternative least, largely due to the latter's perceived time cost. We discuss the implications of designing conversational agents with varied rhetorical styles and the trade-offs among user performance, satisfaction, and contemplation.

Persuasion techniques are powerful rhetorical devices used to sway public opinion in a wide range of media. We present a new corpus of persuasion techniques, focusing on Slavic languages. The corpus contains documents in Bulgarian, Polish, and Russian, annotated with persuasion techniques at the coarse-grained text-span level and fine-grained sentence level. The techniques are drawn from a taxonomy of 25 fine-grained persuasion techniques, grouped under six broad categories of rhetorical persuasion strategies. The corpus contains approximately 7500 text spans from 222 documents that cover topics hotly debated at the national and international levels. We describe the corpus creation process, provide detailed statistics, and examine correlations between topics and persuasion techniques. We use classic ML-based and generative AI-based models to provide baselines and benchmark results for the detection and classification of persuasion techniques at the text-span level and sentence level.

Legal precedent retrieval is a fundamental task in legal case preparation, planning, litigation strategy, and legal research. Current approaches for automatic precedent retrieval map legal documents to a low-dimensional semantic space and compute similarity based on the proximity of their representations. These approaches treat legal documents as monolithic texts, ignoring the rhetorical organization of the legal technicalities. Ergo, they overlook nuanced legal meanings and fail to distinguish the contextual significance of legal entities and concepts that vary based on their rhetorical roles within the document. To address this insufficiency, we propose the PRecG pipeline that computes the similarity between pairs of legal judgments by hierarchically learning their representations. The process begins by decomposing each document into distinct semantic units (segments) based on the rhetorical roles of sentences. For each rhetorical segment, a knowledge graph is constructed to capture the legal entities and their relationships within the segment. Contextual representations of the entities are then learned and aggregated to derive segment-level embeddings. These embeddings are further integrated to produce a unified document-level representation, and finally, the semantic similarity between a pair of documents is computed. We validate the performance of the proposed approach through extensive experiments on a benchmark Indian legal dataset, comparing it against state-of-the-art baselines to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Addressing hate and violence in society requires timely detection of hateful events from public reporting, but automated identification of hateful events remains underexplored. We introduce the task of hateful event detection and investigate the ability of AI systems, specifically large language models (LLMs), to discover and classify reports of antisemitic events with fine-grained labels. We evaluate OpenAI's GPT-4o and Meta's Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct on multiple expert-annotated datasets containing antisemitic event descriptions from news articles, civil society reports, and official records. We show that LLMs, particularly GPT-4o, have potential for this task, but substantial improvement is needed. Providing clear term definitions and in-context examples in prompts can improve performance: definitions are most helpful for rhetoric-oriented events (e.g. classical antisemitic tropes), while examples help label action-oriented events (e.g. physical assault). A case study of college newspapers demonstrates that LLMs can help surface relevant real-world events, supporting early monitoring and intervention. Overall, our findings highlight both opportunities and critical gaps in AI's ability to recognize complex harms and underscore the need for collaborative efforts among AI developers, policymakers, and civil society to design models, implement robust evaluation, and develop policy frameworks for defining and combating hate efficiently and effectively.

Scientific papers follow rhetorical structures that organize content into sections such as Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Automatically identifying these sections at scale enables granular analysis of scientific writing patterns. We present a dataset of section-level annotations for millions of scientific papers from the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus (S2ORC). Using a rule-based classification algorithm, we identified and labeled major sections across 15.6 million papers after quality filtering. The dataset covers primarily STEM disciplines, with strong representation in medicine and biology. We provide comprehensive human and LLM-based validation showing that classifier agreement with human annotators is on par with human inter-annotator agreement. This dataset enables large-scale computational studies of scientific discourse and writing patterns.

As LLMs are increasingly deployed as autonomous adjudicators in semi-open textual game environments, robust rule adherence becomes critical when user intent conflicts with system rules. However, these models are trained to be helpful and compliant, leaving them vulnerable to a class of attacks we term \textit{Rhetorical Injection}, where adversarial users exploit narrative framing techniques such as pseudo-logical reasoning and authoritative coercion to bypass adjudication logic. We present CoC-Seduce, a multi-agent adversarial benchmark built on Tabletop Role-Playing Game (TRPG) mechanics, an ideal instantiation of semi-open environments where rules are explicit for adjudication, yet interaction remains entirely in natural language. Three frontier models, i.e., GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.5 Flash, serve as adversarial generators producing 5,376 samples across 4 world settings and 16 skill categories. We then benchmark 20 target adjudicators against this corpus. Evaluation across 20 models reveals that neither model scale nor explicit reasoning mechanisms reliably confer adjudication robustness, with \textsc{Pseudo-Logic} emerging as the dominant attack vector and cross-cultural settings exposing systematic knowledge gaps across all evaluated families. Project page: https://github.com/answerrtx/CoC-Seduce

Rhetorical strategies and their influence on audiences are often studied through social media posts and comments. However, this focus overlooks the universal audience, which is the majority of readers who remain silent and do not explicitly express how a message affects them. This study investigates how two classical modes of persuasion, ethos and pathos, resonate in the silent audience's interpretations of meaning. Using a dataset of social media sentences paired with human-written interpretations, we label both sources for ethos and pathos and assess whether these rhetorical appeals are preserved. Our analyses show that interpretations diverge from the original sentences in 30% of cases, with rhetorically charged content eliciting greater variability than neutral content. We further find that ethos and pathos in original sentences can predict audience attitudes toward the author, underscoring the subtle ways rhetoric shapes perception beyond visible engagement.

Live product demonstrations are a recurring, high-cost activity in software organizations: a human presenter must select features, dispatch the corresponding interactions on a running application, narrate them coherently, and answer questions in real time. Existing automation addresses only fragments -- generalist browser agents target instruction-conditioned task completion, and demo-video tools produce fixed MP4 artifacts that cannot be questioned and silently break under interface drift. We propose Rhetor, a multi-agent system that takes a running web application and its source-code repository as input and produces a rehearsed live demonstration with segment-synchronized narration and real-time voice question answering. The architectural contributions are a cross-modal feature representation that merges UI exploration with source-code analysis into features tagged with discrete focus tiers, a grounded scripter constrained to UI elements observed during exploration and dispatched through multi-strategy semantic locators, a pre-presentation rehearsal loop with explicit convergence and graceful degradation to narration-only segments, and a runtime synchronization invariant that ties each browser action to the audio-end event of its narration segment. Across six pipeline sessions on four deployed applications -- including the public-domain whiteboard application Excalidraw -- the rehearser's internal locator-firing rate (sigma-bar) spans 0.31-1.00 over 147 scripted actions; on the substantial workload (53 actions, full tier differentiation), sigma-bar is approximately 0.92, and on the public-domain reference point the locator-repair step drives convergence to sigma-bar = 1.00 at iteration 2. We additionally define a benchmark protocol of ten metrics across six application categories that would establish, beyond the case study, whether each design choice contributes positively.

Can a statistically significant, large-effect-size finding in computational social science be entirely an artifact of the measurement instrument? We present a case where the answer appears to be yes. Analyzing 85 interviews across four public intellectuals (2016--2026), we find a robust negative-affect/emphatic-certainty lexical co-occurrence pattern under keyword-based scoring ($r = 0.72$--$0.93$, $p < 0.01$ for all four speakers). Replacing keyword counting with LLM-based zero-shot semantic classification on the complete diarized corpus (32,625 sentences) dramatically reduces this correlation: Dalio's $r = 0.851$ drops to $r = 0.206$, with two speakers showing negative $r(\text{neg}, \text{emphatic})$ and one showing null. In contrast, the LLM reveals a strong negative-hedging coupling across speakers -- Rogoff's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.875$ ($p = 0.001$) and Zeihan's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.722$ ($p = 0.008$) -- consistent with the conventional expectation that pessimistic discourse attracts hedging, not certainty. Sentence-level error analysis traces this discrepancy to three structural failure modes in keyword lexicons -- syntactic blindness, polysemy blindness, and categorical absence -- illustrated through cases where keyword counting inverts semantic meaning (e.g., ''never absolutely totally confident'' scored as high-certainty). We argue that keyword lexicons measure a universal lexical co-occurrence tendency -- negative discourse naturally attracts emphatic vocabulary -- that is orthogonal to, and can systematically invert, rhetorical stance. Treating keyword counts as measurements of epistemic certainty is a category error: a finding that appears to be about a speaker's psychology may be entirely about the counting of words.

Identifying persuasive rhetorical cues is critical across domains, from detecting information manipulation and improving AI safety to advancing public health communication. We propose Persuasion Index (PI), a taxonomy of 15 dimensions grounded in persuasion theories from psychology and communication, and one transparent implementation using 55 sub-features built from lexicons and rule-based detectors. The taxonomy is modular: individual detectors can be replaced while preserving the theoretical structure. By evaluating PI on four public datasets varying in domain, style, and outcome measures, we show that PI provides a shared feature space for interpreting rhetorical patterns associated with persuasion-related outcomes. Linear models show that PI features carry meaningful predictive signal while remaining computationally lightweight. Dimension-level analyses reveal recurring associations between PI dimensions and persuasion outcomes across datasets, while also highlighting topic- and stance-specific variation. We release PI as an open-source package and web interface for principled and auditable analysis of human and AI-mediated communication.

Court judgments are central to legal practice and jurisprudence, yet discourse analysis of Hong Kong judgments has received limited attention, owing largely to the absence of expert-annotated corpora. We introduce the Hong Kong Judgment Discourse Dataset (HKJudge), the first sentence-level expert-annotated legal discourse corpus. HKJudge includes criminal judgments across all five levels of HK's court hierarchy, comprising $\sim$290k sentences and $\sim$6.5 million tokens, fully annotated by legal linguistics experts. We design a two-tier discourse schema that captures what facts a court finds, how it reasons, and what it rules. At the sentence level, each sentence is assigned one of 26 rhetorical roles. At the span level, sentences are further annotated with three sentencing elements (charge, imprisonment term, fine). Ten legal linguistics annotators produced the annotations with an inter-annotator agreement of $κ= 0.8$. We formulate two tasks on HKJudge, termed rhetorical role classification and legal element extraction, and provide the first benchmark evaluation of four BERT-based models, two open-source LLMs under zero-shot and fine-tuning settings, and four commercial LLMs on both tasks. Our work demonstrates the value of sentence-level discourse annotation for modeling the structure of HK judgments and provides a rich data foundation for future work on legal judgment prediction. The HKJudge dataset and code are available at https://github.com/xuanxixi/HKJudge.

Hateful meme detection remains a formidable challenge for vision-language models, as existing benchmarks are structurally observational - confounding rhetorical hate mechanisms with target community features and preventing causal evaluation of model vulnerabilities. To address this, we introduce FBHM, a systematically curated benchmark of Functionality Based Hateful Memes constructed along two orthogonal axes: 25 distinct rhetorical functionalities and 10 target communities (5,000 memes total). Benchmarking state-of-the-art VLMs reveals a severe generalization gap: models highly accurate on standard datasets catastrophically drop to near-random performance on FBHM, proving they exploit dataset-specific heuristics rather than robust multimodal reasoning. To efficiently close this gap, we propose LSV (learnable steering vectors), an ultra-low data regime strategy that applies a causal intervention objective on as few as 500 steering samples (50 unique base memes), boosting FBHM performance by ~30 Macro-F1 points while outperforming in-context learning and PEFT without degrading source-domain performance.

Biomedical abstracts play a critical role in downstream NLP applications, such as information retrieval, biocuration, and biomedical knowledge discovery. However, a non-trivial number of biomedical articles do not have abstracts, diminishing the utility of these articles for downstream tasks. We propose DPR-BAG (Divide, Prompt, and Refine for Biomedical Abstract Generation), a training-free, zero-shot framework that generates coherent and factually grounded abstracts for biomedical articles with full text but no abstract. DPR-BAG decomposes full-text documents into structured rhetorical facets following the Background-Objective-Methods-Results-Conclusions (BOMRC) schema, performs parallel LLM-based summarization for each facet, and applies a final refinement stage to restore global discourse coherence. On PMC-MAD, a distribution-aligned dataset of 46,309 biomedical articles, DPR-BAG improves abstractive novelty over strong extractive and fine-tuned baselines, while maintaining factual consistency. Our ablation study reveals a counterintuitive finding: increasing prompt complexity or explicitly injecting entity-level guidance can degrade factual alignment, highlighting the importance of controlled prompting strategies. These findings underscore the potential of training-free, structure-aware frameworks for scalable biomedical abstract generation in low-resource settings. Our data and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/pmc-mad/PMC-MAD and https://github.com/ScienceNLP-Lab/MultiTagger-v2/tree/main/DPR-BAG.

Rhetorical Role Labeling (RRL) assigns a functional role to each sentence in a document and is widely used in legal, medical, and scientific domains. While language models (LMs) achieve strong average performance, they remain unreliable on hard examples, where prediction confidence is low. Existing approaches typically handle uncertainty implicitly and treat labels as discrete identifiers, overlooking the semantic information encoded in label names. We introduce RISE, an inference-time semantic reranking framework that leverages label semantics to refine predictions on hard instances. RISE automatically identifies low-confidence predictions and reranks model outputs using contrastively learned label representations, without retraining or modifying the underlying model. Experiments on eight domain-specific RRL datasets with seven LMs, including encoder-based and causal architectures, show an average gain of +9.15 macro-F1 points on hard examples. For explainability, we further propose manual hardness annotations to study difficulty from both model and human perspectives, revealing a moderate agreement with Cohen's kappa = 0.40.

The integration of Generative AI (GenAI) into language learning offers second language (L2) writers powerful tools for text optimization. However, pursuing native-like fluency often sacrifices sociopragmatic diversity. Investigating "pragmatic flattening" - the systematic erasure of culturally preferred politeness and authorial stance - this study conducts a comparative analysis of argumentative essays by Chinese B2-level university students from the ICNALE corpus. The original texts were polished via the APIs of four leading Large Language Models at a zero-temperature setting for reproducibility. Findings reveal a nuanced "dimensional divergence" within the Semantic Preservation Paradox. While models corrected lexicogrammatical errors and retained propositional meaning, sociopragmatic interventions were bifurcated. In the interactive dimension, all models showed a drastic collapse of dialogic engagement markers, turning negotiated discourse into monologic assertions. Conversely, in the epistemic stance dimension, models showed architecture-based variability: some aggressively scrubbed epistemic markers, while others reinforced tentative hedging as decontextualized algorithmic caution. This confirms that while GenAI enhances accuracy, it systematically overwrites L2 writers' unique rhetorical identities into a homogenized Anglo-American paradigm. We argue that future instruction must move beyond error correction, advocating for Critical AI Literacy to empower multilingual writers to use GenAI for linguistic enhancement while safeguarding sociopragmatic diversity and rhetorical agency.

Health misinformation remains one of the most pressing challenges on social media, particularly when cultural traditions intersect with scientific-sounding claims. These dynamics are not only global but also deeply local, manifesting in culturally specific controversies that require careful analysis. Motivated by this, we examine 100 YouTube transcripts that promote or debunk cow urine (gomutra) as a health remedy, focusing on rhetorical strategies such as appeals to authority, efficacy appeals, and conspiracy framing. We employ large language models (LLMs) including GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Mistral Medium 3 to annotate transcripts using a 14-category taxonomy of persuasive tactics. Our analysis reveals that promoters predominantly rely on efficacy appeals and social proof, while debunkers emphasize authority and rebuttal. Human evaluation of a subset of annotations yielded 90.1% inter-annotator agreement, confirming the reliability of our taxonomy and validation process. This work advances computational methods for misinformation analysis and demonstrates how LLMs can support large-scale studies of cultural discourse online.

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.

The growing interest of Natural Language Processing (NLP) in minority languages has not yet bridged the gap in the preservation of oral linguistic heritage. In particular, extemporaneous poetry - a performative genre based on real-time improvisation, metrical-rhetorical competence - remains a largely unexplored area of computational linguistics. This methodological gap necessitates the creation of specific resources to document and analyse the structures of improvised poetry. This is the context in which A Bolu was created, the first structured corpus of extemporaneous poetry dedicated to cantada logudorese, a variant of the Sardinian language. The dataset comprises 2,835 stanzas for a total of 141,321 tokens. The study presents the architecture of the corpus and applies a multidimensional analysis combining descriptive statistical indices and computational linguistics techniques to map the characteristics of the poetic text. The results indicate that the production of Sardinian extemporaneous poets is characterised by recurring patterns that support Parry and Lord's theory of formulaicity. This evidence not only provides a new key to understanding oral creativity, but also offers a significant contribution to the development of NLP tools that are more inclusive and sensitive to the specificities of less widely spoken languages.

Accurate comprehension and controllable generation of emotion and rhetoric are pivotal for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Existing studies mostly rely on external optimizations, lacking in-depth exploration of internal representation mechanisms, thus failing to achieve fine-grained steering at the neuron level. A handful of works on neurons are confined to emotions, neglecting rhetoric neurons and their intrinsic connections. Traditional neuron masking also exhibits counterintuitive phenomena, making reliable verification of neuron functionality infeasible. To address these issues, we systematically investigate the neurons representation mechanisms and inherent associations of 6 emotion categories and 4 core rhetorical devices. We propose a neuron identification framework that integrates multi-dimensional screening, and design an adaptive masking method incorporating dynamic filtering, attenuation masking, and feedback optimization, enabling reliable causal validation of neuron functionality.Through neuron regulation, we achieve directed induction of non-target sentences and enhancement of emotion tasks via rhetoric neurons. Experiments on 5 commonly used datasets validate the effectiveness of our method, providing a novel paradigm for the fine-grained steering of emotion and rhetoric expressions in LLMs.

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.