Stance Detection with Collaborative Role-Infused LLM-Based Agents
Open accessAbstract
Stance detection automatically detects the stance in a text towards a target, vital for content analysis in web and social media research. Despite their promising capabilities, LLMs encounter challenges when directly applied to stance detection. First, stance detection demands multi-aspect knowledge, from deciphering event-related terminologies to understanding the expression styles in social media platforms. Second, stance detection requires advanced reasoning to infer authors' implicit viewpoints, as stances are often subtly embedded rather than overtly stated in the text. To address these challenges, we design a three-stage framework COLA (short for Collaborative rOle-infused LLM-based Agents) in which LLMs are designated distinct roles, creating a collaborative system where each role contributes uniquely. Initially, in the multidimensional text analysis stage, we configure the LLMs to act as a linguistic expert, a domain specialist, and a social media veteran to get a multifaceted analysis of texts, thus overcoming the first challenge. Next, in the reasoning-enhanced debating stage, for each potential stance, we designate a specific LLM-based agent to advocate for it, guiding the LLM to detect logical connections between text features and stance, tackling the second challenge. Finally, in the stance conclusion stage, a final decision maker agent consolidates prior insights to determine the stance. Our approach avoids extra annotated data and model training and is highly usable. We achieve state-of-the-art performance across multiple datasets. Ablation studies validate the effectiveness of each role design in handling stance detection. Further experiments have demonstrated the explainability and the versatility of our approach. Our approach excels in usability, accuracy, effectiveness, explainability and versatility, highlighting its value.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs are capable of text mining tasks such as stance detection, sentiment analysis, hate speech, and sociopolitical affiliation of texts.
“recent studies suggest that LLMs are capable of text mining tasks such as stance detection (Lan et al. 2024), sentiment analysis (Lee et al. 2024), hate speech (Kaya, Ozcelik, and Toraman 2024), and sociopolitical affiliation of texts (Ghafouri et al. 2023).”
From Cross-Partisan Interactions on Twitter (2025) · cites this paper as Lan et al. 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423 · see citing works
Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior
Park, J. S., O'Brien, J., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763 · Cited by 2,187 · see citing works
Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning
Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Berman, E., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11366 · Cited by 1,087 · see citing works
Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?
Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, D. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00502 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate
Liang, T., He, Z., Jiao, W., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Wang, R., Yang, Y., Shi, S., & Tu, Z. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.19118 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Persuasion for Good: Towards a Personalized Persuasive Dialogue System for Social Good
Wang, X., Shi, W., Kim, R., Oh, Y., Yang, S., Zhang, J., & Yu, Z. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1566 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework
Hong, S., Zhuge, M., Chen, J., Zheng, X., Cheng, Y., Zhang, C., Wang, J., Wang, Z., Yau, S. K. S., Lin, Z., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00352 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
S3: Social-network Simulation System with Large Language Model-Empowered Agents
Gao, C., Lan, X., Lu, Z., Mao, J., Piao, J., Wang, H., Jin, D., & Li, Y. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4607026 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citationImproving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate
Du, Y., Li, S., Torralba, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Mordatch, I. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14325 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Qin, Y., Liang, S., Ye, Y., Zhu, K., Yan, L., Lu, Y., Lin, Y., Cong, X., Tang, X., Qian, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16789 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate
Chan, C.-M., Chen, W., Su, Y., Yu, J., Xue, W., Zhang, S., Fu, J., & Liu, Z. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.07201 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Large language models as tool makers
Cai, T., Wang, X., Ma, T., Chen, X., & Zhou, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.17126 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- AlDayel, A.; and Magdy, W. 2021. Stance detection on so- cial media: State of the art and trends. Information Process- ing & Management, 58(4): 102597.
- Allaway, E.; and McKeown, K. 2020. Zero-shot stance de- tection: A dataset and model using generalized topic repre- sentations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03640. · arXiv
- Allaway, E.; Srikanth, M.; and McKeown, K. 2021. Adver- sarial learning for zero-shot stance detection on social me- dia. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.06603. · arXiv
- Augenstein, I.; Rocktäschel, T.; Vlachos, A.; and Bontcheva, K. 2016. Stance detection with bidirectional conditional en- coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05464. · arXiv
- Bar-Haim, R.; Bhattacharya, I.; Dinuzzo, F.; Saha, A.; and Slonim, N. 2017. Stance classification of context-dependent claims. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the Euro- pean Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: Volume 1, Long Papers, 251-261.
- Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877- 1901.
- Chen, C.; Teng, Z.; Wang, Z.; and Zhang, Y. 2022. Discrete opinion tree induction for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2051-2064.
- Chen, P.; Sun, Z.; Bing, L.; and Yang, W. 2017. Recurrent attention network on memory for aspect sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 452-461.
- Das, A.; and Rad, P. 2020. Opportunities and challenges in explainable artificial intelligence (xai): A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11371. · arXiv
- Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; and Toutanova, K. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for lan- guage understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
- Gao, C.; Lan, X.; Li, N.; Yuan, Y.; Ding, J.; Zhou, Z.; Xu, F.; and Li, Y. 2023a. Large language models empowered agent- based modeling and simulation: A survey and perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11970. · arXiv
- Huang, H.; Zhang, B.; Li, Y.; Zhang, B.; Sun, Y.; Luo, C.; and Peng, C. 2023. Knowledge-enhanced prompt-tuning for stance detection. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low- Resource Language Information Processing, 22(6): 1-20.
- Jang, M.; and Allan, J. 2018. Explaining controversy on social media via stance summarization. In The 41st Interna- tional ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, 1221-1224.
- Khiabani, P. J.; and Zubiaga, A. 2024. SocialPET: Socially Informed Pattern Exploiting Training for Few- Shot Stance Detection in Social Media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05216. · arXiv
- Küc ¸ük, D.; and Can, F. 2020. Stance detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 53(1): 1-37.
- Li, A.; Liang, B.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, B.; Yang, M.; and Xu, R. 2023a. Stance Detection on Social Media with Background Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 15703- 15717.
- Li, N.; Gao, C.; Li, Y.; and Liao, Q. 2023b. Large lan- guage model-empowered agents for simulating macroeco- nomic activities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10436. · arXiv
- Li, Y.; Sosea, T.; Sawant, A.; Nair, A. J.; Inkpen, D.; and Caragea, C. 2021. P-stance: A large dataset for stance de- tection in political domain. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, 2355- 2365.
- Liang, B.; Chen, Z.; Gui, L.; He, Y.; Yang, M.; and Xu, R. 2022a. Zero-shot stance detection via contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, 2738- 2747.
- Liang, B.; Fu, Y.; Gui, L.; Yang, M.; Du, J.; He, Y.; and Xu, R. 2021. Target-adaptive graph for cross-target stance de- tection. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, 3453- 3464.
- Liang, B.; Zhu, Q.; Li, X.; Yang, M.; Gui, L.; He, Y.; and Xu, R. 2022b. Jointcl: a joint contrastive learning frame- work for zero-shot stance detection. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), volume 1, 81-91. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics.
- Liu, R.; Lin, Z.; Tan, Y.; and Wang, W. 2021. Enhancing zero-shot and few-shot stance detection with commonsense knowledge graph. In Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, 3152-3157.
- Lozhnikov, N.; Derczynski, L.; and Mazzara, M. 2020. Stance prediction for russian: data and analysis. In Pro- ceedings of 6th International Conference in Software Engi- neering for Defence Applications: SEDA 2018 6, 176-186.
- Mohammad, S.; Kiritchenko, S.; Sobhani, P.; Zhu, X.; and Cherry, C. 2016. Semeval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets. In Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval-2016), 31-41.
- Nair, V.; Schumacher, E.; Tso, G.; and Kannan, A. 2023. DERA: enhancing large language model comple- tions with dialog-enabled resolving agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17071. · arXiv
- OpenAI, R. 2023. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv, 2303- 08774.
- Pontiki, M.; Galanis, D.; Pavlopoulos, J.; Papageorgiou, H.; Androutsopoulos, I.; and Manandhar, S. 2014. SemEval- 2014 Task 4: Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis. In Proceed- ings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Evalu- ation (SemEval 2014), 27-35. Dublin, Ireland: Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Schick, T.; Dwivedi-Yu, J.; Dessì, R.; Raileanu, R.; Lomeli, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; Cancedda, N.; and Scialom, T. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761. · arXiv
- Tang, H.; Ji, D.; Li, C.; and Zhou, Q. 2020. Dependency graph enhanced dual-transformer structure for aspect-based sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 58th an- nual meeting of the association for computational linguis- tics, 6578-6588.
- Touvron, H.; Martin, L.; Stone, K.; Albert, P.; Almahairi, A.; Babaei, Y.; Bashlykov, N.; Batra, S.; Bhargava, P.; Bhosale, S.; et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288. · arXiv
- Wang, Y.; Huang, M.; Zhu, X.; and Zhao, L. 2016. Attention-based LSTM for aspect-level sentiment classifi- cation. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 606-615.
- Wei, J.; Bosma, M.; Zhao, V. Y.; Guu, K.; Yu, A. W.; Lester, B.; Du, N.; Dai, A. M.; and Le, Q. V. 2021. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652. · arXiv
- Wei, P.; and Mao, W. 2019. Modeling transferable topics for cross-target stance detection. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and De- velopment in Information Retrieval, 1173-1176.
- Wei, P.; Mao, W.; and Zeng, D. 2018. A target-guided neural memory model for stance detection in twitter. In 2018 In- ternational Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 1-8. IEEE.
- Xiang, J.; Tao, T.; Gu, Y.; Shu, T.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Z.; and Hu, Z. 2023. Language Models Meet World Models: Embodied Experiences Enhance Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10626. · arXiv
- Xu, C.; Paris, C.; Nepal, S.; and Sparks, R. 2018. Cross- target stance classification with self-attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.06593. · arXiv
- Zeng, A.; Liu, X.; Du, Z.; Wang, Z.; Lai, H.; Ding, M.; Yang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Zheng, W.; Xia, X.; et al. 2022. Glm- 130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02414. · arXiv
- Zhang, B.; Ding, D.; and Jing, L. 2022. How would stance detection techniques evolve after the launch of chatgpt? arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14548. · arXiv
- Zhang, B.; Fu, X.; Ding, D.; Huang, H.; Li, Y.; and Jing, L. 2023. Investigating Chain-of-thought with ChatGPT for Stance Detection on Social Media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03087. · arXiv
- Zhang, C.; Li, Q.; and Song, D. 2019. Aspect-based Sen- timent Classification with Aspect-specific Graph Convolu- tional Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), 4568-4578.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cross-Partisan Interactions on Twitter
Çetinkaya, Y. M., Ghafouri, V., Suarez-Tangil, G., Such, J., & Elmas, T. (2025) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v19i1.35819 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lan, X., Gao, C., Jin, D., & Li, Y.
- Affiliations
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
- Published
- 2024-05-28
- Volume
- 18
- Pages
- 891-903
- ISSN
- 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
- 2334-0770
- OpenAlex
- W4399205331
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 9
- FWCI
- 20.33
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- stance detection, LLM agents, agent cooperation, role assignment, social media text analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review