Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

MT2-CSD: A New Dataset and Multi-Semantic Knowledge Fusion Method for Conversational Stance Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read MT2-CSD is the largest human-labeled conversational stance dataset, and the proposed LLM-CRAN model outperforms all strong baselines on it.

desk verdict Useful new dataset, conditional model claims—the unspecified train/test split unit is the thing to check first. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21053 v2 pith:HHD47WAX submitted 2025-06-26 cs.CL

Fuqiang Niu , Genan Dai , Yisha Lu , Jiayu Liao , Xiang Li , Hu Huang , Bowen Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords conversationalstancedetectionmulti-turnRedditdatasetLLMlogicalrelationsconversationactsattentionnetwork
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish two things: that MT2-CSD is the largest English conversational stance dataset labeled by humans, and that a model which injects discourse knowledge extracted by large language models can substantially beat existing methods on it. The dataset contains 24,457 annotated Reddit comments across six targets, with 67.47% of instances deeper than three turns, a regime where prior conversational stance datasets are thin. The proposed model, LLM-CRAN, uses zero-shot prompts to label each comment with a logical relation and a conversation act, then fuses these signals with local, contextual, and graph-based representations through a multi-hop attention network. On the dataset's average F1, LLM-CRAN reaches 54.19, compared with 50.47 for the strongest baseline and 48.18 for GPT-4 prompted in context.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is LLM-CRAN's two-stage pipeline: a Knowledge Acquisition Module (KAM) uses zero-shot prompting with GPT-4 to label every comment's logical relation to its predecessor (one of contrastive, succession, causal, summary) and its conversation act (one of eight categories), and a Multi-Knowledge Integrated Attention Network (MKIAN) encodes these into a graph; four parallel layers (local CNN with masking, GCN for reply structure, and two RGCNs for logical and act relations) produce sentence vectors that a p-hop attention block repeatedly refines and fuses before the stance classifier reads the final vector.

What would settle it

Download the released MT2-CSD splits and check whether any Reddit thread contributes comments to both training and test sets; if leakage exists, re-run LLM-CRAN and GLAN with thread-level splits and see whether the 3.72-point F1 gap narrows or disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that conversational stance detection benefits from explicit multi-semantic knowledge — specifically logical discourse relations (contrastive, succession, causal, summary) and conversation acts (agreement, disagreement, suggestion, and others) — when that knowledge is extracted automatically by an LLM and fused into a purpose-built attention network. On the new MT2-CSD benchmark, this design yields an average F1 of 54.19 across six targets, beating the previous GLAN model (50.47), prompt-tuned BERT variants (around 45), and in-context LLMs including GPT-4 (48.18). The paper also claims that MT2-CSD, with 24,457 instances and the deepest reply chains among existing English CSD datasets, provides the first benchmark where such multi-turn context can be studied at scale.

Load-bearing premise

The reported performance gains assume the data split is made at the level of whole conversation threads, so that no thread appears in both training and test sets — but the paper only says the split ratio (65/15/20) and not the unit it splits on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold under thread-level splitting, LLM-CRAN establishes that LLM-extracted discourse knowledge transfers across targets, since it also leads in all four in-domain cross-target experiments.
  • The dataset's depth distribution — 67.47% of comments beyond depth 3 — makes it possible to test how model performance degrades (or holds) as conversations lengthen; LLM-CRAN is the only method that maintains or improves F1 on the deepest bins in Table XI.
  • Removing the conversation-act layer costs an average 8.84 F1 and removing the logical-relation layer costs 6.10, so the paper's claim that explicit discourse knowledge is the main driver of the gain is directly testable by the provided ablations.
  • Since the model beats prompt-based GPT-4 by about 6 F1 while using GPT-4 only as a knowledge annotator, the architecture shows a division of labor: LLM reasoning is used offline to produce training signals, and a small trainable network makes the final decision.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the dataset is released with thread-level metadata, an immediate test is to re-run LLM-CRAN against GLAN under splits that isolate whole threads; if the 3.72-point margin persists, the discourse-knowledge claim is robust to leakage concerns, and if it shrinks, part of the reported gain is memorization of adjacent comments.
  • The same LLM-as-knowledge-annotator recipe could be applied to other conversational tasks — argument mining, rumor detection, or dialogue act prediction — where logical-relation and act taxonomies are already defined, making MKIAN a reusable fusion block.
  • The paper reports LLM bias on political targets (GPT-3.5 at 27.47 on Trump, DEEM at 32.46 on Biden); this suggests that using LLM-generated knowledge for political sub-discussions may inject systematic stance bias, a risk worth quantifying by comparing KAM outputs against human annotation on the Trump and Biden subsets.
  • Because 67.47% of instances exceed depth 3, the dataset could serve as a stress test for long-context transformers and retrieval-based conversational models, not just CSD-specific architectures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MT2-CSD, a Reddit-sourced dataset for multi-target, multi-turn conversational stance detection comprising 24,457 annotated instances across six targets (Bitcoin, Tesla, SpaceX, Biden, Trump, and a post-as-target setting called Post-T). The authors claim this is the largest human-labeled English conversational stance dataset and that it has greater conversational depth than existing CSD datasets. They also propose LLM-CRAN, which uses zero-shot LLM prompting to extract logical relations and conversation acts, and then fuses these with local CNN, GCN, and RGCN representations through a multi-hop attention mechanism. The main empirical claim is that LLM-CRAN outperforms strong baselines, with an average in-target F1 of 54.19 versus 50.47 for GLAN and 48.18 for GPT-4. The paper also reports cross-target experiments, depth analysis, ablations, and a case study.

Significance. If the dataset and experimental setup are sound, MT2-CSD would be a useful benchmark for conversational stance detection, and the LLM-knowledge-fusion architecture is a reasonable and interesting approach. The paper has several strengths: it evaluates a wide range of baselines, includes cross-target and depth analyses, reports annotation agreement, and the LLM relation extraction is zero-shot and not fitted to the stance labels, so there is no obvious definitional circularity. The ablations and the case study also provide useful qualitative evidence. However, the central empirical comparison is currently undermined by an unspecified data-split unit and by internal inconsistencies in the reported data counts, both of which are fixable but must be resolved before the results can be trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.D] The split unit is not specified: the text says only that the dataset was divided into training, validation, and test sets in a 65/15/20 ratio. Because every instance is defined with the full conversation as context (Section IV.A, Eqs. (1)-(2)), a comment-level random split would place test comments inside threads whose parent, child, or sibling comments appear in training. The GCN/RGCN layers and the multi-hop attention would then have access to near-duplicate conversational context at inference, and the zero-shot LLM in KAM would also see training-set messages from the same thread when labeling test comments. This could inflate the reported gains in Table IX and would also affect the depth analysis in Table XI and the ablation study in Fig. 3. Please state explicitly whether the split unit is a comment or a full Reddit thread, release thread IDs or split files, and if the current split is comment-level, re-run all experiments with a thread-level split.
  2. [Section III.B and Tables V/VII] The data bookkeeping is internally inconsistent. Table V lists 704 posts and 86,948 comments, but Section III.B requires a minimum of 200 comments per post, which would imply at least 140,800 comments. Moreover, Table VII reports only 24,457 annotated instances, and the relationship among raw collected comments, preprocessed comments, and annotated instances is never stated. Please clarify these counts per target, correct the filtering description, and make the data-preprocessing pipeline fully transparent.
  3. [Section VI.A and Table IX] The claim that LLM-CRAN 'significantly outperforms' baselines is supported by significance tests only against Branch-BERT, JoinCL, and TTS, not against the strongest competitors GLAN and GPT-4. Since the central empirical claim is the 3.72-point gain over GLAN and the 6.01-point gain over GPT-4, please report significance tests and confidence intervals for all relevant comparisons, or soften the significance claim accordingly.
  4. [Section IV.C, Table I, and Fig. 4] The conversation-act taxonomy includes Agreement and Disagreement, which are semantically close to stance labels, and Fig. 4 shows a strong concentration of Favor and Against stances in these two acts. Because the LLM extracts these acts zero-shot and only LLM-CRAN receives them, the comparison may partly reflect access to a near-stance signal rather than general conversational understanding. Please discuss this explicitly, and ideally report an ablation in which Agreement and Disagreement are removed from the CA taxonomy, or in which the LLM is prompted to identify the act without being able to infer the target stance from the surrounding thread.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V.B and Table IV] There are several typos: 'LLM-GRAN' should be 'LLM-CRAN' in Section V.B, 'SapceX' should be 'SpaceX' in Table IV, and 'Sepcifically' should be 'Specifically' in Section VI.A.
  2. [Section III.C and Table VI] The sentence 'Following [4], we used the Favor and Against classes to compute the kappa values' is ambiguous; Cohen's kappa is computed between annotators, not between classes. Please describe exactly which annotations entered the kappa calculation and how disagreement was resolved.
  3. [Section IV.C] The prompt template contains the placeholder '[Defined Logical Relations (or Conversation Acts)]' but the actual categories from Table I are not inserted in the template shown; please include the full prompt exactly as used for reproducibility.
  4. [Section III.A and GitHub link] The repository link is given as https://github.com/nfq729/MT-CSD while the dataset is called MT2-CSD; please ensure the released files and README match the paper's target names, the Post-T schema, and the claimed annotation counts.
  5. [Tables IX and X] The tables report averages over three runs but no standard deviations or per-run values; adding these would help assess whether the reported gaps are stable.
  6. [Table XI] For Post-T the depth bins are 2, 3-4, and 5-6, while for other targets they are 1-2, 3-5, and 6-8; please state why depth 1 is excluded for Post-T and define the depth convention consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: LLM-CRAN is trained on external human stance labels, and the LLM-extracted relational features are not fitted to stance labels.

full rationale

LLM-CRAN's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the stance labels. The dataset labels (Against/Favor/None) are produced by human annotators with reported kappa statistics, and the test evaluation compares model predictions against these external labels. The KAM module is explicitly zero-shot: it prompts ChatGPT-4 to output logical-relation and conversation-act labels chosen from fixed external taxonomies ([43], [44]) and is never trained or fitted on MT2-CSD stance labels. The conversation-act categories Agreement and Disagreement are relational labels about the relation between adjacent comments, not target-level stance labels, so their use as features does not make the stance prediction an identity or a renamed input. The baseline GLAN is the authors' previous model [14], but the current comparison is an empirical run on the same split, not an argument by citation; citing one's own prior benchmark is not load-bearing circularity. The ambiguous 65/15/20 split (comment-level vs. conversation-level) is a data-isolation validity risk rather than a definitional circularity, and the Table V/VII bookkeeping inconsistencies do not show that any prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is used to force the architecture choice. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on hand-set hyperparameters, an underspecified split design, and an unvalidated LLM extraction stage. The Post-T labeling scheme is a new task formulation, not an invented physical or conceptual entity, so no invented entities are listed.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (multi-hop attention scale) = 0.1
    Set manually in Section V.B with no sensitivity analysis or justification.
  • number of attention hops p = 3
    Chosen by hand in Section V.B; no ablation over hop count is reported.
  • local convolution kernel size gamma = 3
    Fixed in Section V.B; no study of window size is provided.
  • train/validation/test split ratio = 65/15/20
    Chosen in Section III.D without stated justification; the split unit is also unspecified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The train/validation/test split is conversation-level, so no thread appears in more than one split.
    The paper never states this; Section III.D gives only the 65/15/20 ratio. If false, contextual models see near-duplicates across splits.
  • domain assumption LLM zero-shot extraction of logical relations and conversation acts is sufficiently accurate to serve as training signals.
    KAM in Section IV.C uses ChatGPT-4 with no evaluation of extraction accuracy, no human agreement, and no error analysis.
  • domain assumption Reply-structure edges in the comment graph are correctly extracted from Reddit data.
    The Contextual Representation Layer and RGCN layers assume reliable parent-child relations; the collection section does not describe parsing or validation.
  • standard math Standard machine-learning background for GCN, RGCN, layer norm, attention, and cross-entropy is valid.
    Equations 3 through 8 use standard definitions; no new mathematics is introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MT2-CSD: A New Dataset and Multi-Semantic Knowledge Fusion Method for Conversational Stance Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HHD47WAX

@misc{pith2026250621053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MT2-CSD: A New Dataset and Multi-Semantic Knowledge Fusion Method for Conversational Stance Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HHD47WAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21053}
}
read the original abstract

In the realm of contemporary social media, automatic stance detection is pivotal for opinion mining, as it synthesizes and examines user perspectives on contentious topics to uncover prevailing trends and sentiments. Traditional stance detection research often targets individual instances, thereby limiting its capacity to model multi-party discussions typical in real social media scenarios. This shortcoming largely stems from the scarcity of datasets that authentically capture the dynamics of social media interactions, hindering advancements in conversational stance detection. In this paper, we introduce MT2-CSD, a comprehensive dataset for multi-target, multi-turn conversational stance detection. To the best of our knowledge, MT2-CSD is the largest dataset available for this purpose, comprising 24,457 annotated instances and exhibiting the greatest conversational depth, thereby presenting new challenges for stance detection. To address these challenges, we propose the Large Language model enhanced Conversational Relational Attention Network (LLM-CRAN), which exploits the reasoning capabilities of LLMs to improve conversational understanding. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the efficacy of LLM-CRAN on the MT2-CSD dataset. The experimental results indicate that LLM-CRAN significantly outperforms strong baseline models in the task of conversational stance detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of conversation on Reddit. This substantial growth offers a more thorough and varied set of conversational data for stance modeling. The MT2 -CSD dataset introduces unique challenges for stance detection: (1) Implicit target mentions within local sub-discussions neces￾sitate a detailed understanding of contextual information. For example, in Fig.1, Comment 2 to 4 discuss the impact of “tax cut” policy wit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of our LLM-CRAN framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Heat maps of the conditional distributions between Logical Relations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Ablation test results. exhibits a statistically significant improvement across most evaluation metrics (with a p-value of < 0.05). Sepcifically, the proposed LLM-CRAN model demonstrates significant perfor￾mance improvements over existing approaches. It outperforms the …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. StanceFlip: A Comprehensive Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Multimodal Conversational Stance Flipping Forecasting

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    StanceFlip adds a large multimodal stance-flip benchmark and ConStaFF, a persona-based LLM reasoner that jointly extracts stance sextuples and attributes reversal triggers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Knowledge-augmented interpretable network for zero-shot stance de- tection on social media,

    B. Zhang, D. Ding, Z. Huang, A. Li, Y . Li, B. Zhang, and H. Huang, “Knowledge-augmented interpretable network for zero-shot stance de- tection on social media,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, pp. 1–12, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Twitter stance detection via neural production systems,

    B. Zhang, D. Ding, G. Xu, J. Guo, Z. Huang, and X. Huang, “Twitter stance detection via neural production systems,” in ICASSP 2023- 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    C-mtcsd: A chi- nese multi-turn conversational stance detection dataset,

    F. Niu, Y . Yang, X. Fu, G. Dai, and B. Zhang, “C-mtcsd: A chi- nese multi-turn conversational stance detection dataset,” in Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 , ser. WWW ’25. Association for Computing Machinery, p. 769–772

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    P-stance: A large dataset for stance detection in political domain,

    Y . Li, T. Sosea, A. Sawant, A. J. Nair, D. Inkpen, and C. Caragea, “P-stance: A large dataset for stance detection in political domain,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, 2021, pp. 2355–2365

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Stance detection on social media with background knowledge,

    A. Li, B. Liang, J. Zhao, B. Zhang, M. Yang, and R. Xu, “Stance detection on social media with background knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023, pp. 15 703–15 717

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Cross-target Stance Detection by Exploiting Target Analytical Perspectives

    D. Ding, R. Chen, L. Jing, B. Zhang, X. Huang, L. Dong, X. Zhao, and G. Song, “Cross-target stance detection by exploiting target analytical perspectives,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01761 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Tts: A target-based teacher-student framework for zero-shot stance detection,

    Y . Li, C. Zhao, and C. Caragea, “Tts: A target-based teacher-student framework for zero-shot stance detection,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, 2023, pp. 1500–1509

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Stance in Replies and Quotes (SRQ): A New Dataset For Learning Stance in Twitter Conversations

    R. Villa-Cox, S. Kumar, M. Babcock, and K. M. Carley, “Stance in replies and quotes (srq): A new dataset for learning stance in twitter conversations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00691 , 2020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Improved target-specific stance detection on social media platforms by delving into conversation threads,

    Y . Li, H. He, S. Wang, F. C. Lau, and Y . Song, “Improved target-specific stance detection on social media platforms by delving into conversation threads,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems , 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Contextual target-specific stance detection on twitter: Dataset and method,

    Y . Li, D. Wen, H. He, J. Guo, X. Ning, and F. C. Lau, “Contextual target-specific stance detection on twitter: Dataset and method,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 359–367

    2023

  3. [11]

    Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse,

    B. J. Grosz and C. L. Sidner, “Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse,” Computational linguistics , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 175–204, 1986

    1986

  4. [12]

    Frame semantics for text understanding,

    C. J. Fillmore and C. F. Baker, “Frame semantics for text understanding,” in Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop, NAACL, vol. 6, 2001, pp. 59–64

    2001

  5. [13]

    Conversation analysis,

    C. Goodwin and J. Heritage, “Conversation analysis,” Annual review of anthropology, vol. 19, pp. 283–307, 1990

    1990

  6. [14]

    A challenge dataset and effective models for conversational stance detection,

    F. Niu, M. Yang, A. Li, B. Zhang, X. Peng, and B. Zhang, “A challenge dataset and effective models for conversational stance detection,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 202...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Semeval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets,

    S. Mohammad, S. Kiritchenko, P. Sobhani, X. Zhu, and C. Cherry, “Semeval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets,” in Proceed- ings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval@NAACL-HLT, San Diego, CA, USA, June 16-17 , 2016, pp. 31–41

    2016

  8. [16]

    Enhancing cross- target stance detection with transferable semantic-emotion knowledge,

    B. Zhang, M. Yang, X. Li, Y . Ye, X. Xu, and K. Dai, “Enhancing cross- target stance detection with transferable semantic-emotion knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020, pp. 3188–3197

    2020

  9. [17]

    Will-they-won’t-they: A very large dataset for stance detection on twitter,

    C. Conforti, J. Berndt, M. T. Pilehvar, C. Giannitsarou, F. Toxvaerd, and N. Collier, “Will-they-won’t-they: A very large dataset for stance detection on twitter,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00388 , 2020

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Stance detection in covid-19 tweets,

    K. Glandt, S. Khanal, Y . Li, D. Caragea, and C. Caragea, “Stance detection in covid-19 tweets,” in Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Long Papers),...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Zero-shot stance detection: A dataset and model using generalized topic representations,

    E. Allaway and K. Mckeown, “Zero-shot stance detection: A dataset and model using generalized topic representations,” inProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2020, pp. 8913–8931

    2020

  12. [20]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  13. [21]

    MITRE at SemEval-2016 task 6: Transfer learning for stance detection,

    G. Zarrella and A. Marsh, “MITRE at SemEval-2016 task 6: Transfer learning for stance detection,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016) . Association for Computational Linguistics, Jun. 2016, pp. 458–463

    2016

  14. [22]

    Tohoku at SemEval-2016 task 6: Feature-based model versus con- volutional neural network for stance detection,

    Y . Igarashi, H. Komatsu, S. Kobayashi, N. Okazaki, and K. Inui, “Tohoku at SemEval-2016 task 6: Feature-based model versus con- volutional neural network for stance detection,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016) . Associati...

    2016

  15. [23]

    Connecting targets to tweets: Semantic attention-based model for target-specific stance detection,

    Y . Zhou, A. I. Cristea, and L. Shi, “Connecting targets to tweets: Semantic attention-based model for target-specific stance detection,” in Web Information Systems Engineering–WISE 2017: 18th International Conference, Puschino, Russia, October 7-11, 2017, Proceedings, Part I

    2017

  16. [24]

    Springer, 2017, pp. 18–32

    2017

  17. [25]

    A topic-aware reinforced model for weakly supervised stance detection,

    P. Wei, W. Mao, and G. Chen, “A topic-aware reinforced model for weakly supervised stance detection,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 33, 2019, pp. 7249–7256

    2019

  18. [26]

    Topical stance detection for twitter: A two-phase lstm model using attention,

    K. Dey, R. Shrivastava, and S. Kaushik, “Topical stance detection for twitter: A two-phase lstm model using attention,” in European Conference on Information Retrieval . Springer, 2018, pp. 529–536

    2018

  19. [27]

    Stance classification with target- specific neural attention networks

    J. Du, R. Xu, Y . He, and L. Gui, “Stance classification with target- specific neural attention networks.” International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Stance detection with hierarchical attention network,

    Q. Sun, Z. Wang, Q. Zhu, and G. Zhou, “Stance detection with hierarchical attention network,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics , 2018, pp. 2399–2409

    2018

  21. [29]

    Joint stance and rumor detection in hierarchical heterogeneous graph,

    C. Li, H. Peng, J. Li, L. Sun, L. Lyu, L. Wang, P. S. Yu, and L. He, “Joint stance and rumor detection in hierarchical heterogeneous graph,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 2530– 2542, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Synthetic examples improve cross-target generalization: A study on stance detection on a twitter corpus,

    C. Conforti, J. Berndt, M. T. Pilehvar, C. Giannitsarou, F. Toxvaerd, and N. Collier, “Synthetic examples improve cross-target generalization: A study on stance detection on a twitter corpus,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity,...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Logic augmented multi-decision fusion framework for stance detection on social media,

    B. Zhang, J. Ma, X. Fu, and G. Dai, “Logic augmented multi-decision fusion framework for stance detection on social media,” Information Fusion, p. 103214, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    BERT: Pre- training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre- training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolog...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Jointcl: a joint contrastive learning framework for zero-shot stance detection,

    B. Liang, Q. Zhu, X. Li, M. Yang, L. Gui, Y . He, and R. Xu, “Jointcl: a joint contrastive learning framework for zero-shot stance detection,” in Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), vol. 1. Associatio...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Auto- prompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts,

    T. Shin, Y . Razeghi, R. L. Logan IV , E. Wallace, and S. Singh, “Auto- prompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15980 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Knowledge-enhanced prompt-tuning for stance detection,

    H. Huang, B. Zhang, Y . Li, B. Zhang, Y . Sun, C. Luo, and C. Peng, “Knowledge-enhanced prompt-tuning for stance detection,” ACM Trans- actions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1–20, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    How would stance detection techniques evolve after the launch of chatgpt?

    B. Zhang, D. Ding, and L. Jing, “How would stance detection techniques evolve after the launch of chatgpt?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14548 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Investigating chain-of-thought with chatgpt for stance detection on social media,

    B. Zhang, X. Fu, D. Ding, H. Huang, Y . Li, and L. Jing, “Investigating chain-of-thought with chatgpt for stance detection on social media,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03087 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Human-in-the-loop through chain-of- thought,

    Z. Cai, B. Chang, and W. Han, “Human-in-the-loop through chain-of- thought,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07932 , 2023. 14

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A survey of stance detection on social media: New directions and perspectives,

    B. Zhang, G. Dai, F. Niu, N. Yin, X. Fan, S. Wang, X. Cao, and H. Huang, “A survey of stance detection on social media: New directions and perspectives,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.15690

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Stance detection with collaborative role-infused llm-based agents,

    X. Lan, C. Gao, D. Jin, and Y . Li, “Stance detection with collaborative role-infused llm-based agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10467 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Interpretable zero-shot stance detection with proactive content intervention,

    A. Upadhyaya, W. Nejdl, and M. Fisichella, “Interpretable zero-shot stance detection with proactive content intervention,” Information Pro- cessing & Management , vol. 62, no. 6, p. 104223, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Multimodal multi-turn conversation stance detection: A challenge dataset and effective model,

    F. Niu, Z. Cheng, X. Fu, X. Peng, G. Dai, Y . Chen, H. Huang, and B. Zhang, “Multimodal multi-turn conversation stance detection: A challenge dataset and effective model,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2024, pp. 3867–3876

    2024

  35. [43]

    Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic,

    M. L. McHugh, “Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic,” Biochemia medica, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 276–282, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    A survey of discourse parsing,

    J. Li, M. Liu, B. Qin, and T. Liu, “A survey of discourse parsing,” Frontiers of Computer Science , vol. 16, no. 5, p. 165329, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech,

    A. Stolcke, K. Ries, N. Coccaro, E. Shriberg, R. Bates, D. Jurafsky, P. Taylor, R. Martin, C. V . Ess-Dykema, and M. Meteer, “Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech,” Computational linguistics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 339–373, 2000

    2000

  38. [46]

    Stance and senti- ment in tweets,

    S. M. Mohammad, P. Sobhani, and S. Kiritchenko, “Stance and senti- ment in tweets,” ACM Trans. Internet Technol., vol. 17, no. 3, jun 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Bidirectional recurrent neural networks,

    M. Schuster and K. Paliwal, “Bidirectional recurrent neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 2673–2681, 1997

    1997

  40. [48]

    Aspect based sentiment analysis with gated convo- lutional networks,

    W. Xue and T. Li, “Aspect based sentiment analysis with gated convo- lutional networks,” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) . Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2018, pp. 2514–2523

    2018

  41. [49]

    Stance classification with target- specific neural attention,

    J. Du, R. Xu, Y . He, and L. Gui, “Stance classification with target- specific neural attention,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Interna- tional Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17 , 2017, pp. 3988–3994

    2017

  42. [50]

    Cross-target stance classifi- cation with self-attention networks,

    C. Xu, C. Paris, S. Nepal, and R. Sparks, “Cross-target stance classifi- cation with self-attention networks,” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), 2018, pp. 778–783

    2018

  43. [51]

    DEEM: Dynamic experienced expert modeling for stance detection,

    X. Wang, Y . Wang, S. Cheng, P. Li, and Y . Liu, “DEEM: Dynamic experienced expert modeling for stance detection,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024) . ELRA and ICCL, May ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.