Online misinformation remains a critical challenge, and fact-checkers increasingly rely on embedding-based methods to retrieve relevant fact-checks. Yet, when debunked claims reappear in edited forms, the performance of these methods is unclear. In this work, we introduce a taxonomy of six common real-world misinformation edits and propose a perturbation framework that generates valid, natural claim variations. Our multi-stage retrieval evaluation reveals that standard embedding models struggle with user-introduced edits, while LLM-distilled embeddings offer improved robustness at a higher computational cost. Although a strong reranker helps mitigate some issues, it cannot fully compensate for first-stage retrieval gaps. Addressing these retrieval gaps, our train- and inference-time mitigation approaches enhance in-domain robustness by up to 17 percentage points and boost out-of-domain generalization by 10 percentage points over baseline models. Overall, our findings provide practical improvements to claim-matching systems, enabling more reliable fact-checking of evolving misinformation.

The adoption of crowdsourced election monitoring as a complementary alternative to traditional election monitoring is on the rise. Yet, its reliance on digital response volunteers to manually process incoming election reports poses a significant scaling bottleneck. In this paper, we address the challenge of scaling crowdsourced election monitoring by advancing the task of automated classification of crowdsourced election reports to multilingual and cross-domain classification settings. We propose a two-step classification approach of first identifying informative reports and then categorising them into distinct information types. We conduct classification experiments using multilingual transformer models such as XLM-RoBERTa and multilingual embeddings such as SBERT, augmented with linguistically motivated features. Our approach achieves F1-Scores of 77\% for informativeness detection and 75\% for information type classification. We conduct cross-domain experiments, applying models trained in a source electoral domain to a new target electoral domain in zero-shot and few-shot classification settings. Our results show promising potential for model transfer across electoral domains, with F1-Scores of 59\% in zero-shot and 63\% in few-shot settings. However, our analysis also reveals a performance bias in detecting informative English reports over Swahili, likely due to imbalances in the training data, indicating a need for caution when deploying classification models in real-world election scenarios.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly capable across global languages. However, the ability to communicate across languages does not necessarily translate to appropriate cultural representations. A key concern is US-centric bias, where LLMs reflect US rather than local cultural values. We propose a novel methodology that compares LLM-generated response distributions against population-level opinion data from the World Value Survey across four languages (Danish, Dutch, English, and Portuguese). Using a rigorous linear mixed-effects regression framework, we compare two families of models: Google's Gemma models (2B--27B parameters) and successive iterations of OpenAI's turbo-series. Across the families of models, we find no consistent relationships between language capabilities and cultural alignment. While the Gemma models have a positive correlation between language capability and cultural alignment across languages, the OpenAI models do not. Importantly, we find that self-consistency is a stronger predictor of multicultural alignment than multilingual capabilities. Our results demonstrate that achieving meaningful cultural alignment requires dedicated effort beyond improving general language capabilities.

Large language models can now generate political messages as persuasive as those written by humans, raising concerns about how far this persuasiveness may continue to increase with model size. Here, we generate 720 persuasive messages on 10 U.S. political issues from 24 language models spanning several orders of magnitude in size. We then deploy these messages in a large-scale randomized survey experiment (N = 25,982) to estimate the persuasive capability of each model. Our findings are twofold. First, we find evidence of a log scaling law: model persuasiveness is characterized by sharply diminishing returns, such that current frontier models are barely more persuasive than models smaller in size by an order of magnitude or more. Second, mere task completion (coherence, staying on topic) appears to account for larger models' persuasive advantage. These findings suggest that further scaling model size will not much increase the persuasiveness of static LLM-generated messages.

Understanding the writing frame of news articles is vital for addressing social issues, and thus has attracted notable attention in the fields of communication studies. Yet, assessing such news article frames remains a challenge due to the absence of a concrete and unified standard dataset that considers the comprehensive nuances within news content. To address this gap, we introduce an extended version of a large labeled news article dataset with 16,687 new labeled pairs. Leveraging the pairwise comparison of news articles, our method frees the work of manual identification of frame classes in traditional news frame analysis studies. Overall we introduce the most extensive cross-lingual news article similarity dataset available to date with 26,555 labeled news article pairs across 10 languages. Each data point has been meticulously annotated according to a codebook detailing eight critical aspects of news content, under a human-in-the-loop framework. Application examples demonstrate its potential in unearthing country communities within global news coverage, exposing media bias among news outlets, and quantifying the factors related to news creation. We envision that this news similarity dataset will broaden our understanding of the media ecosystem in terms of news coverage of events and perspectives across countries, locations, languages, and other social constructs. By doing so, it can catalyze advancements in social science research and applied methodologies, thereby exerting a profound impact on our society.

Gun violence is a pressing and growing human rights issue that affects nearly every dimension of the social fabric, from healthcare and education to psychology and the economy. Reliable data on firearm events is paramount to developing more effective public policy and emergency responses. However, the lack of comprehensive databases and the risks of in-person surveys prevent human rights organizations from collecting needed data in most countries. Here, we partner with a Brazilian human rights organization to conduct a systematic evaluation of language models to assist with monitoring real-world firearm events from social media data. We propose a fine-tuned BERT-based model trained on Twitter (now X) texts to distinguish gun violence reports from ordinary Portuguese texts. Our model achieves a high AUC score of 0.97. We then incorporate our model into a web application and test it in a live intervention. We study and interview Brazilian analysts who continuously fact-check social media texts to identify new gun violence events. Qualitative assessments show that our solution helped all analysts use their time more efficiently and expanded their search capacities. Quantitative assessments show that the use of our model was associated with more analysts' interactions with online users reporting gun violence. Taken together, our findings suggest that modern Natural Language Processing techniques can help support the work of human rights organizations.

The emergence of tools based on Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Bing Chat, and Google's Bard, has garnered immense public attention. These incredibly useful, natural-sounding tools mark significant advances in natural language generation, yet they exhibit a propensity to generate false, erroneous, or misleading content -- commonly referred to as "hallucinations." Moreover, LLMs can be exploited for malicious applications, such as generating false but credible-sounding content and profiles at scale. This poses a significant challenge to society in terms of the potential deception of users and the increasing dissemination of inaccurate information. In light of these risks, we explore the kinds of technological innovations, regulatory reforms, and AI literacy initiatives needed from fact-checkers, news organizations, and the broader research and policy communities. By identifying the risks, the imminent threats, and some viable solutions, we seek to shed light on navigating various aspects of veracity in the era of generative AI.

The Internet has become a fundamental resource for activism as it facilitates political mobilization at a global scale. Petition platforms are a clear example of how thousands of people around the world can contribute to social change. Avaaz.org, with a presence in over 200 countries, is one of the most popular of this type. However, little research has focused on this platform, probably due to a lack of available data. In this work we retrieved more than 350K petitions, standardized their field values, and added new information using language detection and named-entity recognition. To motivate future research with this unique repository of global protest, we present a first exploration of the dataset. In particular, we examine how social media campaigning is related to the success of petitions, as well as some geographic and linguistic findings about the worldwide community of Avaaz.org. We conclude with example research questions that could be addressed with our dataset.

For many people who speak more than one language,their language proficiency for each of the languagesvaries. We can conjecture that people who use onelanguage (primary language) more than another wouldshow higher language proficiency in that primary language.It is, however, difficult to observe and quantifythat problem because natural language use is difficultto collect in large amounts. We identify Wikipedia asa great resource for studying multilingualism, and weconduct a quantitative analysis of the language complexityof primary and non-primary users of English,German, and Spanish. Our preliminary results indicatethat there are indeed consistent differences of languagecomplexity in the Wikipedia articles chosen by primaryand non-primary users, as well as differences in the editsby the two groups of users.