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.
Value signals are aggregated user-level moral representations that capture users' inferred value-related tendencies from their online discourse. User behavior on social media is shaped not only by what users say or whom they interact with, but also by the value signal through which they express attitudes. Existing user representation methods largely miss this value-relevant dimension. We propose ValueGraph, a graph pre-training framework that uses automatically inferred moral-value signals as noisy auxiliary signals for contextualized user representation. From post-reply graphs, ValueGraph learns semantic and structural representations and further aligns users through relative value similarity with contrastive and clustering objectives. Rather than treating inferred values as gold psychological labels, ValueGraph uses them as soft constraints for representation learning. Experiments on stance detection and twitter bot detection show consistent gains over strong text-based, graph-based, and text-only LLM baselines, highlighting value-signal guidance as a useful inductive bias for socially informed user modeling.
Stance detection is crucial for understanding the underlying attitude of an expression towards a target. Conversational stance detection is a more challenging stance detection task in real-world social media scenarios, as it involves detecting the user's stance by leveraging the target-related historical statements across conversational sessions. In this paper, we propose target-aware Memory Graph TamGraph, a novel method that dynamically leverages target-related statements for conversational stance detection. Instead of considering all preceding historical conversations or using no prior conversation information for stance detection, our TamGraph employs a stepwise, entropy-guided backtracking mechanism to selectively activate memory from historical conversations and dynamically constructs a target-aware graph to model the stance relations among utterances. This allows the exploitation of target-related information from the conversation history for stance detection while preventing the introduction of noise. Experimental results on both English and Chinese benchmarks demonstrate that our TamGraph substantially improves LLM performance on conversational stance detection.
Angelo Sparacino, Francesca Toni, Adam Dejlcs.CL cs.AI
In computational argumentation, obtaining arguments that explicitly support or attack given claims is a critical precursor to downstream reasoning tasks. When these supporting and attacking arguments are to be retrieved using semantic search methods, they need to be assessed for topic-relevance to the claims of interest as well as for correctness of their (positive or negative) stance towards the claims. In this paper we explore how dense embedding models (hereafter, models), powering modern retrieval pipelines, can serve as the basis of semantic search incorporating this dual assessment. We show experimentally that existing models struggle with asymmetric reasoning, exhibiting a strong bias toward topical overlap while ignoring instructional stance. We also show that correcting this bias via contrastive training triggers a new failure mode where models over-correct, over-fixating on polarity keywords (e.g., "supports" or "refutes") at the expense of the semantic topic. We thus introduce diagnostic word-ablation metrics to quantify this phenomenon and propose a data-centric solution. By implementing a balanced argument curriculum alongside LLM-augmented, stance-inverted arguments, we force the (embedding) models to learn deeper directional logic rather than exploiting superficial lexical shortcuts. Our evaluation demonstrates that, for sufficiently powerful models, this approach can alleviate the observed overcorrection, achieving further improvements in stance-aware argument retrieval.
Publicly available Arabic datasets for target-specific stance detection remain limited, particularly for evaluating cross-target generalization. This paper presents the Mawqif-v2 Extension, 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.
Conversational stance detection has shifted from static text analysis to dynamic multimodal modeling. However, existing benchmarks exhibit three key limitations: failure to capture the dynamic evolution of beliefs, particularly during stance reversals; difficulty in disentangling affective states from logical reasoning; and neglect of the critical role of multimodal cues in resolving pragmatic ambiguities such as sarcasm. To address these limitations, we propose StanceFlip, a benchmark designed for multimodal conversational stance flipping forecasting over multi-turn dialogues across five modalities and multi-scenarios, which includes two novel subtasks: 1) Multimodal Stance Sextuple Extraction, extracting holder, target, emotion, sentiment, stance, and rationale as static state snapshots of dialogue to capture fine-grained cognitive structures. 2) Dynamic Stance Flip Attribution, tracking stance reversals across the conversation and identifying their underlying triggers. Alongside the dataset, we propose a dedicated framework, named ConStaFF, for Multimodal Conversational Stance Flipping Forecasting (MCSFF). Built upon a large language model, ConStaFF performs end-to-end stance reasoning, with a Thought-of-Stance (ToS) reasoning framework and a self-reflective verification mechanism integrated for structured stance modeling and faithful flip attribution. Specifically, ToS decomposes the reasoning process into specialized cognitive personas to formulate target propositions, resolve cross-modal conflicts, and infer historical stance trajectories. Extensive experiments show that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on both sextuple extraction and flip-trigger attribution, outperforming strong multimodal large language model baselines by substantial margins.
Langchen Huang, Sebastian Padó, Franziska Weebercs.CL
Large language models (LLMs) are known to be sensitive to prompt and input formulations. However, existing studies have focused on lexical realization and largely ignored constructional choice. This paper studies whether linguistic construction can systematically shift LLM decisions and where these shifts can be causally localized inside the model. We use political stance judgment as a meaning-sensitive case study and extend an English political statements dataset, resulting in six controlled linguistic rewrite types that preserve or invert the meaning of a statement. Experiments on four open-weight models show that stance instability affect both meaning-preserving and meaning-inversing rewrites. Because output shifts reveal that rewrites affect stance, but not where in the model, we apply activation patching, where activations from the original statement are substituted into the forward pass for the rewritten statement and measure which components recover the original stance distribution. The results show that mid-to-late decoder layers, especially block outputs at the final prompt position, provide the strongest restoration signal.
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.
Social media has become a central arena in which armed conflicts are contested, yet the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine communities on Telegram, whose broadcast architecture yields an unusually direct record of deliberate political communication, have not been systematically compared at scale. This study presents a multi-method computational analysis of 87,617 messages from sixteen Telegram channels, eight pro-Israel and eight pro-Palestine, spanning May 2021 to June 2026 and covering multiple conflict escalations. It combines sentiment analysis, three stance detection methods drawn from distinct paradigms (keyword matching, zero-shot DeBERTa via natural language inference, and a fine-tuned BERTweet model), and a framing analysis, all evaluated against 736 manually annotated messages. The fine-tuned model performed best (72.1% accuracy, 0.721 macro F1 under 5-fold cross-validation), outperforming both label-free baselines by 8 to 11 points; the baselines stalled in the low-to-mid 60s, indicating a hard ceiling for stance detection not adapted to in-domain language. The central finding emerges only when sentiment, stance, and framing are read together: the two communities deploy the same death- and victim-related vocabulary in opposite emotional registers, pro-Israel channels predominantly neutral and report-style, pro-Palestine channels markedly more negative, consistent with writing from the distinct discourse positions of acting party and affected party.
Political discourse has increasingly moved to short-video platforms, yet computational analysis of such content remains constrained by the scarcity of datasets that jointly preserve audiovisual information and hierarchical conversations. Here we present TikStance, a multimodal and context-aware dataset comprising 161 videos and 13,876 comments from TikTok, designed for stance detection in political discussions. The dataset covers three major political figures in the 2024 U.S. election cycle--Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris--with content collected between September 2023 and January 2025. Each discussion unit links a host video and its metadata to a parent-linked comment tree, enabling stance analysis within both audiovisual and conversational context. Each item was independently labeled by three annotators using a three-class scheme (Favor, Against, None) for video-to-target and comment-to-target stance; items with disagreement were re-annotated, and the final Krippendorff's \(α\) reached 0.743, 0.723, and 0.722 for the Trump, Biden, and Harris subsets, respectively. Descriptive analysis further reveals target-dependent differences in stance distributions and conversational depth, with nested replies accounting for 23.3\% of all comments. By combining multi-target coverage, hierarchical conversations, and reliable multi-level human annotations, TikStance supports research in multimodal stance detection, political communication, computational social science, and context-aware natural language processing.
A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased. This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative, and it has been shown that while LLMs are predominantly left and progressive leaning, largely mimicking the biases in the training data, they can be to some extent steered to change their preferences in post-training. In this short note, we check if LLMs have robust stances with regard to major substantive societal issues, on which members of the same ideological camp are often in disagreement, summarised in a novel dataset \textsc{HardChoices}. We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.
Md. Shakhoyat Rahman Shujon, MD Jahid Hasan Jim, Md. Milon Islam +2cs.CL cs.LG
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.
Yuzhe Wang, Thomas Thebaud, Jennifer Hu +5cs.AI cs.SD eess.AS
Speech-to-speech dialogue models increasingly depend on prosody and interactional nuance to convey social intent, yet benchmarks for these cues remain limited. We introduce StanceBench, a benchmark for measuring interpersonal stance in conversational speech and evaluating audio-capable LLMs as automated judges. Using the Seamless Interaction corpus, StanceBench (1) specifies 9 stance dimensions via role-prompt poles, (2) standardizes single-speaker and interaction-based evaluations, and (3) reports LLM-as-a-judge robustness, bias, and stance inference. Across evaluated stances, empathy and politeness are the easiest. Warmth and assertiveness are moderately separable with positivity skew/asymmetry. Honesty is the hardest and shows high prompt order bias, consistent with needing cross-turn evidence. Attentiveness is separable but aligns weakly with humans. Interaction stances are more context-sensitive, with threshold gaps and high variance, especially conflict regulation.
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.
Eyup Engin Kucuk, Tarik Kelestemur, Ömer Dağlar Tanrikulucs.CL cs.AI
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.
Bioethical debates increasingly unfold on social media, yet stance detection research lacks large-scale, domain-specific resources for modeling such context-dependent discourse. We present BioStance, a context-aware dataset of 39,600 annotated Post-Comment pairs from Reddit bioethical discussions. BioStance covers six controversial targets across three dimensions of bioethical controversy: fundamental value conflicts, individual liberty versus collective responsibility, and technological uncertainty. Each instance preserves hierarchical conversational context and is labeled by three independent annotators using a three-class stance scheme: Favor, Against, and None. The annotations achieve a mean Krippendorff's $α$ of 0.82, indicating substantial reliability. By combining thematic diversity, conversational structure, and high-quality human annotation, BioStance supports research on context-aware stance detection, argument mining, and computational analysis of bioethical discourse.
Kholoud K. Aldous, Md Rafiul Biswas, Mabrouka Bessghaier +3cs.CL
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.
Tilman Beck, Shakib Yazdani, Simon Kruschinski +2cs.CL
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 \href{https://github.com/tilmanbeck/stance-context-twitter}{page}.
Multimodal Stance Detection (MSD) is crucial for understanding public discourse, yet effectively fusing text and image, especially with conflicting signals, remains challenging. Existing methods often face difficulties with contextual grounding, cross-modal interpretation ambiguity, and single-pass reasoning fragility. To address these, we propose Retrieval-Augmented Multi-modal Multi-agent Stance Detection (MM-StanceDet), a novel multi-agent framework integrating Retrieval Augmentation for contextual grounding, specialized Multimodal Analysis agents for nuanced interpretation, a Reasoning-Enhanced Debate stage for exploring perspectives, and Self-Reflection for robust adjudication. Extensive experiments on five datasets demonstrate MM-StanceDet significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, validating the efficacy of its multi-agent architecture and structured reasoning stages in addressing complex multimodal stance challenges.
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.