arXiv Computation and Language

How Different, or Different How? Stance Granularity in Viewpoint Selection for Dialog Systems that Engage Users with Alternative Views

The paper introduces a stance‑granularity selection policy for dialog systems that engage users with alternative viewpoints. By using Perspectivized Stance Vectors to break positions into concept‑level stances, the system selects the most novel viewpoint within a bandit‑controlled distance bound. Experiments with 63 participants show that concept‑level stance yields more varied exposure sequences and broader coverage of topic positions, though it does not affect depth of justification or reconstruction accuracy.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

Embedding Models for Stance-Aware Argument Retrieval

The paper investigates how dense embedding models can be used for stance-aware argument retrieval, a task that requires both topic relevance and correct stance (support or attack) toward a claim. Experiments reveal that current models favor topical overlap and ignore stance, and that contrastive training to fix this bias leads to over-correction, where models focus too much on polarity keywords at the expense of topic relevance. To address this, the authors propose diagnostic word-ablation metrics and a data‑centric solution involving a balanced argument curriculum and LLM‑augmented stance‑inverted arguments, which helps powerful models learn deeper directional logic and improves stance‑aware retrieval performance.

By Angelo Sparacino, Francesca Toni, Adam Dejl
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9

Can Decision Models Understand Stance? Evaluating Jev Against General-Purpose LLMs

The paper evaluates Jev, a specialized decision model, on stance detection tasks using the VAST (English) and ZS-CSD (Chinese) datasets. Jev matches GPT‑5.6 and outperforms other general‑purpose LLMs on VAST, but lags behind stronger LLMs on ZS‑CSD, especially in distinguishing favor from against. The authors suggest that Jev’s limitations may stem from difficulties in understanding reply relationships and stance direction rather than conversation length.

By Xing Li, Jinzhong Ning, Yijia Zhang, Liang Yang, Hongfei Lin
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

MMDS-Bench: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models on Dynamic Stance in Social Media Interactions

MMDS-Bench is a new diagnostic benchmark for multimodal dynamic stance classification in social media parent‑reply interactions. It contains 3,482 multimodal instances annotated with a seven‑label stance taxonomy, plus an 800‑instance subset that demands structured reasoning over parent and reply understanding and stance‑relation inference. The benchmark also tags each instance with five challenge factors—multimodal fusion, parent framing, non‑literal expression, interaction reasoning, and label‑boundary ambiguity—and evaluates 12 multimodal large language models using a reference‑grounded LLM‑judge protocol, revealing that current models still struggle with relational inference beyond separate parent and reply comprehension.

By Yuzhe Ding, Kang He, Li Zheng, Shengwu Zheng, Teng Shi, Fei Li, Chong Teng, Donghong Ji
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 12

MoPrO-SD: Modular Prompt Optimization for Stance Detection

MoPrO‑SD is a stance‑specific prompt optimization framework that breaks prompts into semantic modules and refines them sequentially with LLM feedback. It evaluates three refinement strategies—instruction‑only, instruction with reasoning, and instruction with per‑example reasoning—using class‑conditioned errors to improve stance detection. The authors also release VaccineStance, a new human‑annotated benchmark for vaccine stance detection, and demonstrate that MoPrO‑SD outperforms human‑written base prompts across multiple datasets and open‑weight LLMs.

By Meysam Sabbaghan, Nikesh Gyawali, Arman Zareian Jahromi, Sebastian Loera-Lozano, Doina Caragea, Cornelia Caragea
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

Evaluating the Capabilities of LLMs for Persuasive Dialogue

The paper introduces “Persuasio”, a multi‑agent dialogue platform that uses a formal argumentation theory to adjudicate winners in free‑text debates. Using this system, the authors generated 192 debates on a UK political topic involving humans and large language models (LLMs), and evaluated 22 interlocutors through automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgments across 1,386 annotation instances. The results show a consistent decoupling between subjective persuasiveness—where LLMs dominate—and formal argumentative strength—where humans remain competitive, with multi‑agent and retrieval‑augmented variants widening this gap.

By Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson, Anthony G. Cohn