Fine-tuning with Hierarchical Prompting for Robust Propaganda Classification Across Annotation Schemas

Propaganda detection in social media is challenging due to noisy, short texts and low annotation agreements. We introduce a new intent-focused taxonomy of propaganda techniques and compare it against an established, higher-agreement schema. Along three dimensions (model portfolio, schema effects, and prompting strategy) we evaluate the taxonomies as a classification task with the help of four language models (GPT-4.1-nano, Phi-4 14B, Qwen2.5-14B, Qwen3-14B). Our results show that fine-tuning is essential, since it transforms weak zero-shot baselines into competitive systems and reveals methodological differences that are hidden using base models. Across schemas, the Qwen models achieve the strongest overall performance, and Phi-4 14B consistently outperforms GPT-4.1-nano. Our hierarchical prompting method (HiPP), which predicts fine-grained techniques before aggregating them, is especially beneficial after fine-tuning and on the more ambiguous, low-agreement taxonomy, while remaining competitive on the simpler schema. The HQP dataset, annotated with the new intent-based labels, provides a richer lens on propaganda's strategic goals and a challenging benchmark for future work on robust, real-world detection.

From Articles to Premises: Building PrimeFacts, an Extraction Methodology and Resource for Fact-Checking Evidence

Fact-checking articles encode rich supporting evidence and reasoning, yet this evidence remains largely inaccessible to automated verification systems due to unstructured presentation. We introduce PrimeFacts, a methodology and resource for extracting fine-grained evidence from full fact-checking articles. We compile 13,106 PolitiFact articles with claims, verdicts, and all referenced sources, and we identify 49,718 in-article hyperlinks as natural anchors to pinpoint key evidence. Our framework leverages large language models (LLMs) to rewrite these anchor sentences into stand-alone, context-independent premises and investigates the extraction of additional implicit evidence. In evaluations on cross-article evidence retrieval and claim verification, the extracted premises substantially improve performance. Decontextualized evidence yields higher retrievability, achieving up to a 30 percent relative gain in Mean Reciprocal Rank over verbatim sentences, and using the evidence for verdict prediction raises Macro-F1 by 10-20 points over the baseline. These gains are consistent across different verdict granularities (2-class vs. 5-class) and model architectures. A qualitative analysis indicates that the decontextualized premises remain faithful to the original sources. Our work highlights the promise of reusing fact-checkers' evidence for automation and provides a large-scale resource of structured evidence from real-world fact-checks.

From Weights to Activations: Is Steering the Next Frontier of Adaptation?

Post-training adaptation of language models is commonly achieved through parameter updates or input-based methods such as fine-tuning, parameter-efficient adaptation, and prompting. In parallel, a growing body of work modifies internal activations at inference time to influence model behavior, an approach known as steering. Despite increasing use, steering is rarely analyzed within the same conceptual framework as established adaptation methods. In this work, we argue that steering should be regarded as a form of model adaptation. We introduce a set of functional criteria for adaptation methods and use them to compare steering approaches with classical alternatives. This analysis positions steering as a distinct adaptation paradigm based on targeted interventions in activation space, enabling local and reversible behavioral change without parameter updates. The resulting framing clarifies how steering relates to existing methods, motivating a unified taxonomy for model adaptation.

Transparency as Architecture: Structural Compliance Gaps in EU AI Act Article 50 II

Art. 50 II of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act mandates dual transparency for AI-generated content: outputs must be labeled in both human-understandable and machine-readable form for automated verification. This requirement, entering into force in August 2026, collides with fundamental constraints of current generative AI systems. Using synthetic data generation and automated fact-checking as diagnostic use cases, we show that compliance cannot be reduced to post-hoc labeling. In fact-checking pipelines, provenance tracking is not feasible under iterative editorial workflows and non-deterministic LLM outputs; moreover, the assistive-function exemption does not apply, as such systems actively assign truth values rather than supporting editorial presentation. In synthetic data generation, persistent dual-mode marking is paradoxical: watermarks surviving human inspection risk being learned as spurious features during training, while marks suited for machine verification are fragile under standard data processing. Across both domains, three structural gaps obstruct compliance: (a) absent cross-platform marking formats for interleaved human-AI outputs; (b) misalignment between the regulation's 'reliability' criterion and probabilistic model behavior; and (c) missing guidance for adapting disclosures to heterogeneous user expertise. Closing these gaps requires transparency to be treated as an architectural design requirement, demanding interdisciplinary research across legal semantics, AI engineering, and human-centered desi

Retrieving Climate Change Disinformation by Narrative

Detecting climate disinformation narratives typically relies on fixed taxonomies, which do not accommodate emerging narratives. Thus, we re-frame narrative detection as a retrieval task: given a narrative's core message as a query, rank texts from a corpus by alignment with that narrative. This formulation requires no predefined label set and can accommodate emerging narratives. We repurpose three climate disinformation datasets (CARDS, Climate Obstruction, climate change subset of PolyNarrative) for retrieval evaluation and propose SpecFi, a framework that generates hypothetical documents to bridge the gap between abstract narrative descriptions and their concrete textual instantiations. SpecFi uses community summaries from graph-based community detection as few-shot examples for generation, achieving a MAP of 0.505 on CARDS without access to narrative labels. We further introduce narrative variance, an embedding-based difficulty metric, and show via partial correlation analysis that standard retrieval degrades on high-variance narratives (BM25 loses 63.4% of MAP), while SpecFi-CS remains robust (32.7% loss). Our analysis also reveals that unsupervised community summaries converge on descriptions close to expert-crafted taxonomies, suggesting that graph-based methods can surface narrative structure from unlabeled text.

Multiperspectivity as a Resource for Narrative Similarity Prediction

Predicting narrative similarity can be understood as an inherently interpretive task: different, equally valid readings of the same text can produce divergent interpretations and thus different similarity judgments, posing a fundamental challenge for semantic evaluation benchmarks that encode a single ground truth. Rather than treating this multiperspectivity as a challenge to overcome, we propose to incorporate it in the decision making process of predictive systems. To explore this strategy, we created an ensemble of 31 LLM personas. These range from practitioners following interpretive frameworks to more intuitive, lay-style characters. Our experiments were conducted on the SemEval-2026 Task 4 dataset, where the system achieved an accuracy score of 0.705. Accuracy improves with ensemble size, consistent with Condorcet Jury Theorem-like dynamics under weakened independence. Practitioner personas perform worse individually but produce less correlated errors, yielding larger ensemble gains under majority voting. Our error analysis reveals a consistent negative association between gender-focused interpretive vocabulary and accuracy across all persona categories, suggesting either attention to dimensions not relevant for the benchmark or valid interpretations absent from the ground truth. This finding underscores the need for evaluation frameworks that account for interpretive plurality.

Persona Prompting as a Lens on LLM Social Reasoning

For socially sensitive tasks like hate speech detection, the quality of explanations from Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for factors like user trust and model alignment. While Persona prompting (PP) is increasingly used as a way to steer model towards user-specific generation, its effect on model rationales remains underexplored. We investigate how LLM-generated rationales vary when conditioned on different simulated demographic personas. Using datasets annotated with word-level rationales, we measure agreement with human annotations from different demographic groups, and assess the impact of PP on model bias and human alignment. Our evaluation across three LLMs results reveals three key findings: (1) PP improving classification on the most subjective task (hate speech) but degrading rationale quality. (2) Simulated personas fail to align with their real-world demographic counterparts, and high inter-persona agreement shows models are resistant to significant steering. (3) Models exhibit consistent demographic biases and a strong tendency to over-flag content as harmful, regardless of PP. Our findings reveal a critical trade-off: while PP can improve classification in socially-sensitive tasks, it often comes at the cost of rationale quality and fails to mitigate underlying biases, urging caution in its application.

Order in the Evaluation Court: A Critical Analysis of NLG Evaluation Trends

Despite advances in Natural Language Generation (NLG), evaluation remains challenging. Although various new metrics and LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) methods are proposed, human judgment persists as the gold standard. To systematically review how NLG evaluation has evolved, we employ an automatic information extraction scheme to gather key information from NLG papers, focusing on different evaluation methods (metrics, LaaJ and human evaluation). With extracted metadata from 14,171 papers across four major conferences (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, and INLG) over the past six years, we reveal several critical findings: (1) Task Divergence: While Dialogue Generation demonstrates a rapid shift toward LaaJ (>40% in 2025), Machine Translation remains locked into n-gram metrics, and Question Answering exhibits a substantial decline in the proportion of studies conducting human evaluation. (2) Metric Inertia: Despite the development of semantic metrics, general-purpose metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE) continue to be widely used across tasks without empirical justification, often lacking the discriminative power to distinguish between specific quality criteria. (3) Human-LaaJ Divergence: Our association analysis challenges the assumption that LLMs act as mere proxies for humans; LaaJ and human evaluations prioritize very different signals, and explicit validation is scarce (<8% of papers comparing the two), with only moderate to low correlation. Based on these observations, we derive practical recommendations to improve the rigor of future NLG evaluation.

Can Large Language Models Still Explain Themselves? Investigating the Impact of Quantization on Self-Explanations

Quantization is widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs), yet its effects on self-explanations (SEs) remain unexplored. SEs, generated by LLMs to justify their own outputs, require reasoning about the model's own decision-making process, a capability that may exhibit particular sensitivity to quantization. As SEs are increasingly relied upon for transparency in high-stakes applications, understanding whether and to what extent quantization degrades SE quality and faithfulness is critical. To address this gap, we examine two types of SEs: natural language explanations (NLEs) and counterfactual examples, generated by LLMs quantized using three common techniques at distinct bit widths. Our findings indicate that quantization typically leads to moderate declines in both SE quality (up to 4.4\%) and faithfulness (up to 2.38\%). The user study further demonstrates that quantization diminishes both the coherence and trustworthiness of SEs (up to 8.5\%). Compared to smaller models, larger models show limited resilience to quantization in terms of SE quality but better maintain faithfulness. Moreover, no quantization technique consistently excels across task accuracy, SE quality, and faithfulness. Given that quantization's impact varies by context, we recommend validating SE quality for specific use cases, especially for NLEs, which show greater sensitivity. Nonetheless, the relatively minor deterioration in SE quality and faithfulness does not undermine quantization's effectiveness as a model compression technique.

Parallel Universes, Parallel Languages: A Comprehensive Study on LLM-based Multilingual Counterfactual Example Generation

Counterfactuals refer to minimally edited inputs that cause a model's prediction to change, serving as a promising approach to explaining the model's behavior. Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating English counterfactuals and demonstrate multilingual proficiency. However, their effectiveness in generating multilingual counterfactuals remains unclear. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive study on multilingual counterfactuals. We first conduct automatic evaluations on both directly generated counterfactuals in the target languages and those derived via English translation across six languages. Although translation-based counterfactuals offer higher validity than their directly generated counterparts, they demand substantially more modifications and still fall short of matching the quality of the original English counterfactuals. Second, we find the patterns of edits applied to high-resource European-language counterfactuals to be remarkably similar, suggesting that cross-lingual perturbations follow common strategic principles. Third, we identify and categorize four main types of errors that consistently appear in the generated counterfactuals across languages. Finally, we reveal that multilingual counterfactual data augmentation (CDA) yields larger model performance improvements than cross-lingual CDA, especially for lower-resource languages. Yet, the imperfections of the generated counterfactuals limit gains in model performance and robustness.