Stance Detection

Arabic-language stance detection remains challenging, and previous shared-task systems have largely relied on multitask learning and ensembles. While these systems achieve state-of-the-art performance, their applicability and transferability are limited by the additional complexity introduced by multitask learning.To reduce this complexity, we introduce $\texttt{CLASP-Ar}$, which reformulates the task as cloze-style masked language modeling. In this approach, the target, predicted sentiment, and text are combined into a single prompt whose $\texttt{[MASK]}$ prediction is restricted to a verbalizer-constrained label vocabulary.

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.

Article-level news stance detection aims to identify the perspective of news articles toward social issues. Despite advances in stance detection and its importance for trustworthy media environments, news articles pose distinct challenges because their stances are often implicit, subtly conveyed through journalistic framing, and embedded in long, structurally complex texts. To address these challenges, we introduce VFStance, which leverages visual framing to make implicit stance cues more explicit via image generation. In evaluation experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of VFStance over existing methods and the contribution of visual framing to its performance. Finally, a controlled user study (N=200) in a snippet-based news consumption setting further demonstrates that VFStance can make stance signals visually salient and highlights its potential use beyond automated stance detection.

The same event can be reported from different perspectives depending on the experiences, background, and beliefs of the writer or speaker. A variety of NLP areas engage with perspectives, spanning from text analysis to algorithm optimization. A wide range of operative concepts (such as stances, sentiment, frames, and arguments) has been used to capture perspectives in texts, however the precise relationships among those concepts remain unclear. Arguably, a deeper theoretical understanding of these concepts would empower more effective research on perspectives. In this paper, we address this gap by reviewing the space of perspectives in NLP and defining a set of properties that help distinguishing perspective-related concepts. Our analysis leads us to posit a hierarchy which organizes these concepts linearly along a single axis. Finally, we show how this principled conceptual hierarchy can help researchers navigate the field and select operationalizations of perspective that align with their specific research objectives.

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.

Publicly available Arabic datasets for target-specific stance detection remain limited, particularly for evaluating cross-target generalization. This paper presents the Mawqif-XT, consisting of 996 manually annotated Arabic tweets collected from three public targets: Women Driving, E-Cars, and Trimester System. Each tweet is annotated with stance, sentiment, and sarcasm labels following the original Mawqif annotation scheme. The released extension is intended as a held-out evaluation set for assessing model generalization to both semantically related and previously unseen targets, while the original Mawqif dataset is used for training and development. In addition, we establish baseline results using several Arabic and multilingual transformer models, as well as zero-shot large language models (LLMs), to facilitate reproducible evaluation. Together with the original Mawqif dataset, the Mawqif-v2 Extension provides a benchmark for evaluating cross-target generalization in Arabic stance detection.

Stance detection aims to identify whether a text expresses a favorable or opposing attitude toward a given target, and serves as an important task for various downstream applications. Although existing studies have achieved strong performance in monolingual settings, especially in English, many low-resource languages such as Catalan still lack sufficient annotated data for training effective models. Cross-lingual stance detection alleviates this problem by transferring stance knowledge from resource-rich languages to low-resource languages. However, most existing methods mainly rely on semantic alignment between texts and targets, while ignoring the reasoning process required for reliable stance inference. Although Large Language Models provide strong reasoning ability, their high computational cost and inference latency limit practical deployment. To address these limitations, we propose a rationale-guided knowledge distillation framework for cross-lingual stance detection. Specifically, we use Chain-of-Thought prompting to guide Large Language Models in generating informative rationales, and distill the resulting reasoning knowledge into a compact student model. We further design a dual-path distillation mechanism to align rationale-enhanced and rationale-free representations, together with their prediction distributions. In addition, two contrastive learning strategies are introduced to improve stance discrimination. Experiments on multilingual benchmarks demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms competitive baselines.

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.

We introduce PAST-TIDE, our stance detection system addressing both subtasks of the StanceNakba Shared Task at NakbaNLP@LREC-COLING 2026. The main idea is statement tuning. We redefine stance as cloze-style masked language modeling (MLM), letting a verbalizer map label words to stance categories through the pre-trained MLM head rather than appending a randomly initialized classification head. We complement this with prototypical contrastive learning, which uses learnable class prototypes for batch-size independent contrastive training, and topic-conditional layer normalization for cross-topic Arabic stance detection. PAST-TIDE achieves macro-F1 scores of 0.75 for Subtask A and 0.74 for Subtask B on the official leaderboard, indicating that minimal architectural additions to a pre-trained model can remain competitive in low-resource settings.

Zero-shot tweet-level stance detection confronts two primary challenges: (1) mitigating the context sparsity inherent in short texts, and (2) establishing the relevance between implicit targets and textual content. While existing methods primarily focus on incorporating external knowledge, they neglect the intrinsic semantic cues embedded within key intra-textual entities. Furthermore, current models exhibit limited capability in determining the relevance of unseen targets to the given text, thereby struggling to differentiate between "neutral" and "irrelevant" stance labels. To address these issues, we first construct a four-class, multi-topic Japanese tweet dataset. To our knowledge, this is the first Japanese tweet-level dataset for stance detection. We then propose KIRP, a zero-shot stance detection framework. It integrates external knowledge with entity reorganization for data augmentation and employs prompt chaining for reasoning. Specifically, the framework incorporates knowledge graphs to supplement and reorganize key textual entities, while reflective Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning extracts and validates implicit targets. To better distinguish "neutral" from "irrelevant" labels, we adopt stance-aware contrastive learning to capture discriminative features and design a three-layer iterative prototype network for fine-grained classification. Experimental results on SemEval-2016, WT-WT, and KIRP-D show that KIRP achieves state-of-the-art performance. KIRP obtains F1 scores of 84.05% (three-class) on SemEval-2016, and 84.99% and 79.18% (four-class) on WT-WT and KIRP-D, respectively.

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.

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.

Prompt-based LLMs are increasingly used for stance detection, but harder examples are not always repaired by clearer instructions, reasoning prompts, retrieval, or debate. We introduce SICI (Stance Inference Complexity Index), a seven-dimensional diagnostic measure of the semantic-pragmatic burden imposed by a target--text pair. Across SemEval-2016 and VAST, SICI predicts LLM accuracy better than surface proxies and shows substantial cross-scorer reliability ($α=0.771$). More importantly, LLM errors change regime as SICI increases: low-complexity examples invite over-attribution, especially Against predictions; intermediate examples form an unstable boundary; and high-complexity examples rapidly concentrate on None. This phase-transition-like structure persists across GPT-3.5, GPT-4o-mini, DeepSeek-V3, and GPT-4o, although stronger models move the boundaries. A 15-method intervention study further shows that prompting, retrieval, and debate often shift models along the attribution--abstention axis rather than removing the high-complexity bottleneck.

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.

Stance detection requires identifying an author's position toward a target, often from short-form texts where stance is implicit, indirect, or rhetorically framed. Although large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on this task, single-pass prompting can be brittle when multiple interpretations are plausible. Existing aggregation strategies, such as majority voting or self-consistency, improve robustness by combining labels, but they discard the intermediate reasoning needed to resolve conflicting interpretations. We introduce a multi-agent reasoning framework with adaptive worker allocation for stance detection that shifts aggregation from label-level voting to reasoning-level synthesis. The framework employs a Manager-Worker architecture in which a Manager adaptively allocates a variable number of Worker agents based on input complexity. Each Worker analyzes the input from a distinct perspective and produces a reasoning-only explanation without emitting a stance label; the Manager then synthesizes these explanations to produce the final prediction. We evaluate the proposed framework on SemEval-2016, P-Stance, and COVID-19 Stance using Llama, Mistral, and Gemini. Results show that the framework yields the largest gains on implicit and context-dependent stance cases, achieving 86.07 Macro-F1 on COVID-19 and 82.90 on SemEval-2016, while remaining competitive on more explicit stance datasets such as P-Stance. These findings suggest that adaptive reasoning-level aggregation is most beneficial when stance cannot be reliably inferred from surface cues alone.

Stance detection on social media is challenging due to short, noisy, and context-dependent language. While large language models (LLMs) show zero-shot generalization, they are typically prompted without contextual information, which limits their ability to interpret ambiguous posts. In this work, we systematically investigate the impact of incorporating real-world (e.g., user biographies), derived (e.g., political party), and LLM-generated (e.g., target descriptions) contextual features into zero-shot prompting for stance detection on Twitter. Our evaluation spans four benchmark datasets, including a new high-quality German Twitter stance dataset. Across multiple LLMs, we find that integrating contextual information improves performance, but only under specific conditions. LLM-generated target descriptions consistently enhance accuracy, while other user metadata has mixed or even detrimental effects. Notably, we show that the inclusion of other tweets by the same user, often beneficial in supervised learning, can impair performance due to input noise. Our qualitative analysis reveals that LLMs struggle to distinguish task-specific useful information from irrelevant context. Our findings highlight both the promise and challenges of prompting with context information in noisy real-world settings. We publish code and data at this page.

Prediction markets such as Polymarket aggregate crowd beliefs into real-time probability estimates, and the comments traders post beneath each market contain rich directional stance signals that prices alone cannot capture. This work introduces the first stance detection study applied to prediction market commentary, a domain characterized by extreme brevity, trader- specific vernacular, and severe class imbalance (only 8.7% of comments oppose the market outcome). RoBERTa-base is fine-tuned across a 4 x 3 ablation: four input configurations ({2- class, 3-class} x {with/without market context}) and three augmentation conditions (baseline, 50% synthetic, 100% synthetic). Synthetic minority-class samples are generated via LLM-driven Pro -> Anti counterfactual flips using the Anthropic API. Results show that (1) market context is the single most impactful factor, raising 3-class Anti recall from 0.10 to 0.45; (2) counterfactual augmentation is conditionally effective, improving Anti F1 in weak configurations (0.10 -> 0.24) while degrading strong ones (2-class-ctx macro F1: 0.68 -> 0.50 at full dose); and (3) 50% augmentation is the optimal dose, with 100% consistently hurting performance. Attention-based interpretability analysis provides mechanistic support for all three findings.

Democratic discourse analysis systems increasingly rely on multi-agent LLM pipelines in which distinct evaluator models are assigned adversarial roles to generate structured, multi-perspective assessments of political statements. A core assumption is that models will reliably maintain their assigned roles. This paper provides the first systematic empirical test of that assumption using the TRUST pipeline. We develop an epistemic stance classifier that identifies advocate roles from reasoning text without relying on surface vocabulary, and measure role fidelity across 60 political statements (30 English, 30 German) using four metrics: Role Drift Index (RDI), Expected Drift Distance (EDD), Directional Drift Index (DDI), and Entropy-based Role Stability (ERS). We identify two failure modes - the Epistemic Floor Effect (fact-check results create an absolute lower bound below which the legitimizing role cannot be maintained) and Role-Prior Conflict (training-time knowledge overrides role instructions for factually unambiguous statements) - as manifestations of a single mechanism: Epistemic Role Override (ERO). Model choice significantly affects role fidelity: Mistral Large outperforms Claude Sonnet by 28pp (67% vs. 39%) and exhibits a qualitatively different failure mode - role abandonment without polarity reversal - compared to Claude's active switch to the opposing stance. Role fidelity is language-robust. Fact-check provider choice is not universally neutral: Perplexity significantly reduces Claude's role fidelity on German statements (Delta = -15pp, p = 0.007) while leaving Mistral unaffected. These findings have direct implications for multi-agent LLM validation: a system validated without role fidelity measurement may systematically misrepresent the epistemic diversity it was designed to provide.

Stance detection identifies the attitude of a text author toward a given target. Recent studies have explored various LLM-based strategies for this task, from zero-shot prompting to multi-agent debate. However, existing works differ in data splits, base models, and evaluation protocols, making fair comparison difficult. We conduct a systematic comparison that evaluates five methods across two categories -- prompt-based inference (Direct Prompting, Auto-CoT, StSQA) and agent-based debate (COLA, MPRF) -- on four datasets with 14 subtasks, using 15 LLMs from six model families with parameter sizes from 7B to 72B+. Our experiments yield several findings. First, on all models with complete results, the best prompt-based method outperforms the best agent-based method, while agent methods require 7 to 12 times more API calls per sample. Second, model scale has a larger impact on performance than method choice, with gains plateauing around 32B. Third, reasoning-enhanced models (DeepSeek-R1) do not consistently outperform general models of the same size on this task.

The proliferation of online debate platforms and social media has led to an unprecedented volume of argumentative content on controversial topics from multiple perspectives. While this wealth of perspectives offers opportunities for developing critical thinking and breaking filter bubbles (Pariser 2011), the sheer volume and complexity of arguments make it challenging for readers to synthesize and comprehend diverse viewpoints effectively. We present an unsupervised graph-based approach for community-based argument organization that helps users navigate and understand complex argumentative landscapes. Our system analyzes collections of topic-focused articles and constructs a rich interaction graph by capturing multiple relationship types between arguments: topic similarity, semantic coherence, shared keywords, and common entities. We then employ community detection to identify argument communities that reveal homogeneous and heterogeneous viewpoint distributions. The detected communities are simplified through strategic graph operations to present users with digestible, yet comprehensive summaries of key argumentative patterns. Our approach requires no training data and can effectively process hundreds of articles while preserving nuanced relationships between arguments. Experimental results demonstrate our system's ability to identify meaningful argument communities and present them in an interpretable manner, facilitating users' understanding of complex socio-political debates.

The increasing amount of political debates and politics-related discussions calls for the definition of novel computational methods to automatically analyse such content with the final goal of lightening up political deliberation to citizens. However, the specificity of the political language and the argumentative form of these debates (employing hidden communication strategies and leveraging implicit arguments) make this task very challenging, even for current general-purpose pre-trained Language Models (PLMs). To address this, we introduce a novel PLM for political discourse language called RooseBERT. Pre-training a language model on a specialised domain presents different technical and linguistic challenges, requiring extensive computational resources and large-scale data. RooseBERT has been trained on large political debate and speech corpora (11GB) in English. To evaluate its performances, we fine-tuned it on multiple downstream tasks related to political debate analysis, i.e., stance detection, sentiment analysis, argument component detection and classification, argument relation prediction and classification, policy classification, named entity recognition (NER). Our results show improvements over general-purpose PLMs on the majority of these tasks, highlighting how domain-specific pre-training enhances performance in political debate analysis. We release RooseBERT for the research community: https://huggingface.co/collections/MARIANNE-INRIA/roosebert.