SQBC: Active Learning using LLM-Generated Synthetic Data for Stance Detection in Online Political Discussions

Stance detection is an important task for many applications that analyse or support online political discussions. Common approaches include fine-tuning transformer based models. However, these models require a large amount of labelled data, which might not be available. In this work, we present two different ways to leverage LLM-generated synthetic data to train and improve stance detection agents for online political discussions: first, we show that augmenting a small fine-tuning dataset with synthetic data can improve the performance of the stance detection model. Second, we propose a new active learning method called SQBC based on the "Query-by-Comittee" approach. The key idea is to use LLM-generated synthetic data as an oracle to identify the most informative unlabelled samples, that are selected for manual labelling. Comprehensive experiments show that both ideas can improve the stance detection performance. Curiously, we observed that fine-tuning on actively selected samples can exceed the performance of using the full dataset.

AQuA -- Combining Experts' and Non-Experts' Views To Assess Deliberation Quality in Online Discussions Using LLMs

Measuring the quality of contributions in political online discussions is crucial in deliberation research and computer science. Research has identified various indicators to assess online discussion quality, and with deep learning advancements, automating these measures has become feasible. While some studies focus on analyzing specific quality indicators, a comprehensive quality score incorporating various deliberative aspects is often preferred. In this work, we introduce AQuA, an additive score that calculates a unified deliberative quality score from multiple indices for each discussion post. Unlike other singular scores, AQuA preserves information on the deliberative aspects present in comments, enhancing model transparency. We develop adapter models for 20 deliberative indices, and calculate correlation coefficients between experts' annotations and the perceived deliberativeness by non-experts to weigh the individual indices into a single deliberative score. We demonstrate that the AQuA score can be computed easily from pre-trained adapters and aligns well with annotations on other datasets that have not be seen during training. The analysis of experts' vs. non-experts' annotations confirms theoretical findings in the social science literature.