We introduce SCRum-9, a multilingual dataset for Rumour Stance Classification, containing 7,516 tweet-reply pairs from X. SCRum-9 goes beyond existing stance classification datasets by covering more languages (9), linking examples to more fact-checked claims (2.1k), and including complex annotations from multiple annotators to account for intra- and inter-annotator variability. Annotations were made by at least three native speakers per language, totalling around 405 hours of annotation and 8,150 dollars in compensation. Experiments on SCRum-9 show that it is a challenging benchmark for both state-of-the-art LLMs (e.g. Deepseek) as well as fine-tuned pre-trained models, motivating future work in this area.
Stance detection plays a pivotal role in enabling an extensive range of downstream applications, from discourse parsing to tracing the spread of fake news and the denial of scientific facts. While most stance classification models rely on textual representation of the utterance in question, prior work has demonstrated the importance of the conversational context in stance detection. In this work we introduce TASTE -- a multimodal architecture for stance detection that harmoniously fuses Transformer-based content embedding with unsupervised structural embedding. Through the fine-tuning of a pretrained transformer and the amalgamation with social embedding via a Gated Residual Network (GRN) layer, our model adeptly captures the complex interplay between content and conversational structure in determining stance. TASTE achieves state-of-the-art results on common benchmarks, significantly outperforming an array of strong baselines. Comparative evaluations underscore the benefits of social grounding -- emphasizing the criticality of concurrently harnessing both content and structure for enhanced stance detection.
In-context learning (ICL) performance is known to be sensitive to the prompt design, yet the impact of class label options in zero-shot classification has been largely overlooked. This study presents the first comprehensive empirical study investigating how label option (e.g., lexical choice, order, and elaboration) influences zero-shot ICL classification performance. Our findings reveal that lexical choices for label names (e.g., agree vs.support in stance classification) play an important role, with effects also linked to label orders. An analysis of the model internal states further shows that optimal label names tend to activate fewer outlier neurons in the feed forward network. Based on this observation, we propose Label set Optimization via Activation Distribution kurtosiS (LOADS), a post-hoc approach requiring no gradient propagation. LOADS not only demonstrates effectiveness with only 100 unlabelled samples across different model types and sizes, but also shows cross-lingual transferability.
Argumentative stance classification plays a key role in identifying authors' viewpoints on specific topics. However, generating diverse pairs of argumentative sentences across various domains is challenging. Existing benchmarks often come from a single domain or focus on a limited set of topics. Additionally, manual annotation for accurate labeling is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To address these challenges, we propose leveraging platform rules, readily available expert-curated content, and large language models to bypass the need for human annotation. Our approach produces a multidomain benchmark comprising 4,498 topical claims and 30,961 arguments from three sources, spanning 21 domains. We benchmark the dataset in fully supervised, zero-shot, and few-shot settings, shedding light on the strengths and limitations of different methodologies. We release the dataset and code in this study at hidden for anonymity.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in executing tasks based on natural language queries. However, these models, trained on curated datasets, inherently embody biases ranging from racial to national and gender biases. It remains uncertain whether these biases impact the performance of LLMs for certain tasks. In this study, we investigate the political biases of LLMs within the stance classification task, specifically examining whether these models exhibit a tendency to more accurately classify politically-charged stances. Utilizing three datasets, seven LLMs, and four distinct prompting schemes, we analyze the performance of LLMs on politically oriented statements and targets. Our findings reveal a statistically significant difference in the performance of LLMs across various politically oriented stance classification tasks. Furthermore, we observe that this difference primarily manifests at the dataset level, with models and prompting schemes showing statistically similar performances across different stance classification datasets. Lastly, we observe that when there is greater ambiguity in the target the statement is directed towards, LLMs have poorer stance classification accuracy. Code & Dataset: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12938478
Addressing online disinformation requires analysing narratives across languages to help fact-checkers and journalists sift through large amounts of data. The ExU project focuses on developing AI-based models for multilingual disinformation analysis, addressing the tasks of rumour stance classification and claim retrieval. We describe the ExU project proposal and summarise the results of a user requirements survey regarding the design of tools to support fact-checking.
Identifying user's opinions and stances in long conversation threads on various topics can be extremely critical for enhanced personalization, market research, political campaigns, customer service, conflict resolution, targeted advertising, and content moderation. Hence, training language models to automate this task is critical. However, to train such models, gathering manual annotations has multiple challenges: 1) It is time-consuming and costly; 2) Conversation threads could be very long, increasing chances of noisy annotations; and 3) Interpreting instances where a user changes their opinion within a conversation is difficult because often such transitions are subtle and not expressed explicitly. Inspired by the recent success of large language models (LLMs) for complex natural language processing (NLP) tasks, we leverage Mistral Large and GPT-4 to automate the human annotation process on the following two tasks while also providing reasoning: i) User Stance classification, which involves labeling a user's stance of a post in a conversation on a five-point scale; ii) User Dogmatism classification, which deals with labeling a user's overall opinion in the conversation on a four-point scale. The majority voting on zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot annotations from these two LLMs on 764 multi-user Reddit conversations helps us curate the USDC dataset. USDC is then used to finetune and instruction-tune multiple deployable small language models for the 5-class stance and 4-class dogmatism classification tasks. We make the code and dataset publicly available [https://anonymous.4open.science/r/USDC-0F7F].
Many tasks related to Computational Social Science and Web Content Analysis involve classifying pieces of text based on the claims they contain. State-of-the-art approaches usually involve fine-tuning models on large annotated datasets, which are costly to produce. In light of this, we propose and release a qualitative and versatile few-shot learning methodology as a common paradigm for any claim-based textual classification task. This methodology involves defining the classes as arbitrarily sophisticated taxonomies of claims, and using Natural Language Inference models to obtain the textual entailment between these and a corpus of interest. The performance of these models is then boosted by annotating a minimal sample of data points, dynamically sampled using the well-established statistical heuristic of Probabilistic Bisection. We illustrate this methodology in the context of three tasks: climate change contrarianism detection, topic/stance classification and depression-relates symptoms detection. This approach rivals traditional pre-train/fine-tune approaches while drastically reducing the need for data annotation.
Sentiment analysis is one of the most widely used techniques in text analysis. Recent advancements with Large Language Models have made it more accurate and accessible than ever, allowing researchers to classify text with only a plain English prompt. However, "sentiment" entails a wide variety of concepts depending on the domain and tools used. It has been used to mean emotion, opinions, market movements, or simply a general ``good-bad'' dimension. This raises a question: What exactly are language models doing when prompted to label documents by sentiment? This paper first overviews how sentiment is defined across different contexts, highlighting that it is a confounded measurement construct in that it entails multiple variables, such as emotional valence and opinion, without disentangling them. I then test three language models across two data sets with prompts requesting sentiment, valence, and stance classification. I find that sentiment labels most strongly correlate with valence labels. I further find that classification improves when researchers more precisely specify their dimension of interest rather than using the less well-defined concept of sentiment. I conclude by encouraging researchers to move beyond "sentiment" when feasible and use a more precise measurement construct.
We propose WIBA, a novel framework and suite of methods that enable the comprehensive understanding of "What Is Being Argued" across contexts. Our approach develops a comprehensive framework that detects: (a) the existence, (b) the topic, and (c) the stance of an argument, correctly accounting for the logical dependence among the three tasks. Our algorithm leverages the fine-tuning and prompt-engineering of Large Language Models. We evaluate our approach and show that it performs well in all the three capabilities. First, we develop and release an Argument Detection model that can classify a piece of text as an argument with an F1 score between 79% and 86% on three different benchmark datasets. Second, we release a language model that can identify the topic being argued in a sentence, be it implicit or explicit, with an average similarity score of 71%, outperforming current naive methods by nearly 40%. Finally, we develop a method for Argument Stance Classification, and evaluate the capability of our approach, showing it achieves a classification F1 score between 71% and 78% across three diverse benchmark datasets. Our evaluation demonstrates that WIBA allows the comprehensive understanding of What Is Being Argued in large corpora across diverse contexts, which is of core interest to many applications in linguistics, communication, and social and computer science. To facilitate accessibility to the advancements outlined in this work, we release WIBA as a free open access platform (wiba.dev).
Conversational prompt-engineering-based large language models (LLMs) have enabled targeted control over the output creation, enhancing versatility, adaptability and adhoc retrieval. From another perspective, digital misinformation has reached alarming levels. The anonymity, availability and reach of social media offer fertile ground for rumours to propagate. This work proposes to leverage the advancement of prompting-dependent LLMs to combat misinformation by extending the research efforts of the RumourEval task on its Twitter dataset. To the end, we employ two prompting-based LLM variants (GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4) to extend the two RumourEval subtasks: (1) veracity prediction, and (2) stance classification. For veracity prediction, three classifications schemes are experimented per GPT variant. Each scheme is tested in zero-, one- and few-shot settings. Our best results outperform the precedent ones by a substantial margin. For stance classification, prompting-based-approaches show comparable performance to prior results, with no improvement over finetuning methods. Rumour stance subtask is also extended beyond the original setting to allow multiclass classification. All of the generated predictions for both subtasks are equipped with confidence scores determining their trustworthiness degree according to the LLM, and post-hoc justifications for explainability and interpretability purposes. Our primary aim is AI for social good.
Public opinion of military organizations significantly influences their ability to recruit talented individuals. As recruitment efforts increasingly extend into digital spaces like social media, it becomes essential to assess the stance of social media users toward online military content. However, there is a notable lack of data for analyzing opinions on military recruiting efforts online, compounded by challenges in stance labeling, which is crucial for understanding public perceptions. Despite the importance of stance analysis for successful online military recruitment, creating human-annotated, in-domain stance labels is resource-intensive. In this paper, we address both the challenges of stance labeling and the scarcity of data on public opinions of online military recruitment by introducing and releasing the DIVERSE dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10493803. This dataset comprises all comments from the U.S. Army's official YouTube Channel videos. We employed a state-of-the-art weak supervision approach, leveraging large language models to label the stance of each comment toward its respective video and the U.S. Army. Our findings indicate that the U.S. Army's videos began attracting a significant number of comments post-2021, with the stance distribution generally balanced among supportive, oppositional, and neutral comments, with a slight skew towards oppositional versus supportive comments.
Recently, influence functions present an apparatus for achieving explainability for deep neural models by quantifying the perturbation of individual train instances that might impact a test prediction. Our objectives in this paper are twofold. First we incorporate influence functions as a feedback into the model to improve its performance. Second, in a dataset extension exercise, using influence functions to automatically identify data points that have been initially `silver' annotated by some existing method and need to be cross-checked (and corrected) by annotators to improve the model performance. To meet these objectives, in this paper, we introduce InfFeed, which uses influence functions to compute the influential instances for a target instance. Toward the first objective, we adjust the label of the target instance based on its influencer(s) label. In doing this, InfFeed outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines (including LLMs) by a maximum macro F1-score margin of almost 4% for hate speech classification, 3.5% for stance classification, and 3% for irony and 2% for sarcasm detection. Toward the second objective we show that manually re-annotating only those silver annotated data points in the extension set that have a negative influence can immensely improve the model performance bringing it very close to the scenario where all the data points in the extension set have gold labels. This allows for huge reduction of the number of data points that need to be manually annotated since out of the silver annotated extension dataset, the influence function scheme picks up ~1/1000 points that need manual correction.
The Stanceosaurus corpus (Zheng et al., 2022) was designed to provide high-quality, annotated, 5-way stance data extracted from Twitter, suitable for analyzing cross-cultural and cross-lingual misinformation. In the Stanceosaurus 2.0 iteration, we extend this framework to encompass Russian and Spanish. The former is of current significance due to prevalent misinformation amid escalating tensions with the West and the violent incursion into Ukraine. The latter, meanwhile, represents an enormous community that has been largely overlooked on major social media platforms. By incorporating an additional 3,874 Spanish and Russian tweets over 41 misinformation claims, our objective is to support research focused on these issues. To demonstrate the value of this data, we employed zero-shot cross-lingual transfer on multilingual BERT, yielding results on par with the initial Stanceosaurus study with a macro F1 score of 43 for both languages. This underlines the viability of stance classification as an effective tool for identifying multicultural misinformation.
Neutrality is difficult to achieve and, in politics, subjective. Traditional media typically adopt an editorial line that can be used by their potential readers as an indicator of the media bias. Several platforms currently rate news outlets according to their political bias. The editorial line and the ratings help readers in gathering a balanced view of news. But in the advent of instruction-following language models, tasks such as writing a newspaper article can be delegated to computers. Without imposing a biased persona, where would an AI-based news outlet lie within the bias ratings? In this work, we use the ratings of authentic news outlets to create a multilingual corpus of news with coarse stance annotations (Left and Right) along with automatically extracted topic annotations. We show that classifiers trained on this data are able to identify the editorial line of most unseen newspapers in English, German, Spanish and Catalan. We then apply the classifiers to 101 newspaper-like articles written by ChatGPT and Bard in the 4 languages at different time periods. We observe that, similarly to traditional newspapers, ChatGPT editorial line evolves with time and, being a data-driven system, the stance of the generated articles differs among languages.
Sentiment analysis, widely critiqued for capturing merely the overall tone of a corpus, falls short in accurately reflecting the latent structures and political stances within texts. This study introduces topic metrics, dummy variables converted from extracted topics, as both an alternative and complement to sentiment metrics in stance classification. By employing three datasets identified by Bestvater and Monroe (2023), this study demonstrates BERTopic's proficiency in extracting coherent topics and the effectiveness of topic metrics in stance classification. The experiment results show that BERTopic improves coherence scores by 17.07% to 54.20% when compared to traditional approaches such as Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) and Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), prevalent in earlier political science research. Additionally, our results indicate topic metrics outperform sentiment metrics in stance classification, increasing performance by as much as 18.95%. Our findings suggest topic metrics are especially effective for context-rich texts and corpus where stance and sentiment correlations are weak. The combination of sentiment and topic metrics achieve an optimal performance in most of the scenarios and can further address the limitations of relying solely on sentiment as well as the low coherence score of topic metrics.
This paper presents an overview of the ImageArg shared task, the first multimodal Argument Mining shared task co-located with the 10th Workshop on Argument Mining at EMNLP 2023. The shared task comprises two classification subtasks - (1) Subtask-A: Argument Stance Classification; (2) Subtask-B: Image Persuasiveness Classification. The former determines the stance of a tweet containing an image and a piece of text toward a controversial topic (e.g., gun control and abortion). The latter determines whether the image makes the tweet text more persuasive. The shared task received 31 submissions for Subtask-A and 21 submissions for Subtask-B from 9 different teams across 6 countries. The top submission in Subtask-A achieved an F1-score of 0.8647 while the best submission in Subtask-B achieved an F1-score of 0.5561.
This study enhances stance detection on social media by incorporating deeper psychological attributes, specifically individuals' moral foundations. These theoretically-derived dimensions aim to provide a comprehensive profile of an individual's moral concerns which, in recent work, has been linked to behaviour in a range of domains, including society, politics, health, and the environment. In this paper, we investigate how moral foundation dimensions can contribute to predicting an individual's stance on a given target. Specifically we incorporate moral foundation features extracted from text, along with message semantic features, to classify stances at both message- and user-levels using both traditional machine learning models and large language models. Our preliminary results suggest that encoding moral foundations can enhance the performance of stance detection tasks and help illuminate the associations between specific moral foundations and online stances on target topics. The results highlight the importance of considering deeper psychological attributes in stance analysis and underscores the role of moral foundations in guiding online social behavior.
A main goal of Argument Mining (AM) is to analyze an author's stance. Unlike previous AM datasets focusing only on text, the shared task at the 10th Workshop on Argument Mining introduces a dataset including both text and images. Importantly, these images contain both visual elements and optical characters. Our new framework, TILFA (A Unified Framework for Text, Image, and Layout Fusion in Argument Mining), is designed to handle this mixed data. It excels at not only understanding text but also detecting optical characters and recognizing layout details in images. Our model significantly outperforms existing baselines, earning our team, KnowComp, the 1st place in the leaderboard of Argumentative Stance Classification subtask in this shared task.
Stance classification, the task of predicting the viewpoint of an author on a subject of interest, has long been a focal point of research in domains ranging from social science to machine learning. Current stance detection methods rely predominantly on manual annotation of sentences, followed by training a supervised machine learning model. However, this manual annotation process requires laborious annotation effort, and thus hampers its potential to generalize across different contexts. In this work, we investigate the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a stance detection methodology that can reduce or even eliminate the need for manual annotations. We investigate 10 open-source models and 7 prompting schemes, finding that LLMs are competitive with in-domain supervised models but are not necessarily consistent in their performance. We also fine-tuned the LLMs, but discovered that fine-tuning process does not necessarily lead to better performance. In general, we discover that LLMs do not routinely outperform their smaller supervised machine learning models, and thus call for stance detection to be a benchmark for which LLMs also optimize for. The code used in this study is available at \url{https://github.com/ijcruic/LLM-Stance-Labeling}