Uncovering Temporal Framing in the News

Temporal language does more than place events on a timeline. In news discourse, references to the past, present, and future can function as rhetorical devices that shape interpretation and persuasion. Here, we study temporal framing, defined as the persuasive use of time-related language to structure meaning rather than to report chronology. We propose a taxonomy of eight temporal frames grounded in prior work on temporality and framing, and we realize it through expert annotation of a multilingual news corpus. The resulting dataset includes 458 English and German news articles, with over 2K temporally framed sentences and approximately 3K temporal framing annotations identified from a corpus of more than 20K sentences. We analyze frame prevalence, co-occurrence patterns, and lexical cues, and evaluate temporal framing detection using supervised fine-tuning and zero-shot classification. Our experiments show that temporal framing is learnable at the sentence level, with supervised models substantially outperforming zero-shot approaches. We publicly release the corpus to support future research on temporal framing: https://mbzuai-nlp.github.io/temporal-framing/.

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.

ClimateCheck 2026: Scientific Fact-Checking and Disinformation Narrative Classification of Climate-related Claims

Automatically verifying climate-related claims against scientific literature is a challenging task, complicated by the specialised nature of scholarly evidence and the diversity of rhetorical strategies underlying climate disinformation. ClimateCheck 2026 is the second iteration of a shared task addressing this challenge, expanding on the 2025 edition with tripled training data and a new disinformation narrative classification task. Running from January to February 2026 on the CodaBench platform, the competition attracted 20 registered participants and 8 leaderboard submissions, with systems combining dense retrieval pipelines, cross-encoder ensembles, and large language models with structured hierarchical reasoning. In addition to standard evaluation metrics (Recall@K and Binary Preference), we adapt an automated framework to assess retrieval quality under incomplete annotations, exposing systematic biases in how conventional metrics rank systems. A cross-task analysis further reveals that not all climate disinformation is equally verifiable, potentially implicating how future fact-checking systems should be designed.

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.

LLMs as Strategic Actors: Behavioral Alignment, Risk Calibration, and Argumentation Framing in Geopolitical Simulations

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as agents in strategic decision environments, yet their behavior in structured geopolitical simulations remains under-researched. We evaluate six popular state-of-the-art LLMs alongside results from human results across four real-world crisis simulation scenarios, requiring models to select predefined actions and justify their decisions across multiple rounds. We compare models to humans in action alignment, risk calibration through chosen actions' severity, and argumentative framing grounded in international relations theory. Results show that models approximate human decision patterns in base simulation rounds but diverge over time, displaying distinct behavioural profiles and strategy updates. LLM explanations for chosen actions across all models exhibit a strong normative-cooperative framing centered on stability, coordination, and risk mitigation, with limited adversarial reasoning.

Online Density-Based Clustering for Real-Time Narrative Evolution Monitorin

Automated narrative intelligence systems for social media monitoring face significant scalability challenges when processing continuous data streams using traditional batch clustering algorithms. We investigate the replacement of HDBSCAN (offline clustering) with online (streaming/incremental) clustering methods in a production narrative report generation pipeline. The proposed system employs a three-stage architecture (data collection, modeling, dashboard generation) that processes thousands of multilingual social media documents daily. While HDBSCAN excels at discovering hierarchical density-based clusters and handling noise, its batch-only nature necessitates complete retraining for each time window, resulting in memory constraints, computational inefficiency, and inability to adapt to evolving narratives in real-time. This work evaluates a bunch of online clustering algorithms across dimensions of cluster quality preservation, computational efficiency, memory footprint, and integration compatibility with existing workflows. We propose evaluation criteria that balance traditional clustering metrics (Silhouette Coefficient, Davies-Bouldin Index) with narrative metrics (narrative distinctness, contingency and variance). Our methodology includes sliding-window simulations on historical datasets from Ukraine information space, enabling comparative analysis of algorithmic trade-offs in realistic operational contexts. This research addresses a critical gap between batch-oriented topic modeling frameworks and the streaming nature of social media monitoring, with implications for computational social science, crisis informatics, and narrative surveillance systems.

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.

How desirable is alignment between LLMs and linguistically diverse human users?

We discuss how desirable it is that Large Language Models (LLMs) be able to adapt or align their language behavior with users who may be diverse in their language use. User diversity may come about among others due to i) age differences; ii) gender characteristics, and/or iii) multilingual experience, and associated differences in language processing and use. We consider potential consequences for usability, communication, and LLM development.