GPT Assisted Annotation of Rhetorical and Linguistic Features for Interpretable Propaganda Technique Detection in News Text
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While the use of machine learning for the detection of propaganda techniques in text has garnered considerable attention, most approaches focus on "black-box" solutions with opaque inner workings. Interpretable approaches provide a solution, however, they depend on careful feature engineering and costly expert annotated data. Additionally, language features specific to propagandistic text are generally the focus of rhetoricians or linguists, and there is no data set labeled with such features suitable for machine learning. This study codifies 22 rhetorical and linguistic features identified in literature related to the language of persuasion for the purpose of annotating an existing data set labeled with propaganda techniques. To help human experts annotate natural language sentences with these features, RhetAnn, a web application, was specifically designed to minimize an otherwise considerable mental effort. Finally, a small set of annotated data was used to fine-tune GPT-3.5, a generative large language model (LLM), to annotate the remaining data while optimizing for financial cost and classification accuracy. This study demonstrates how combining a small number of human annotated examples with GPT can be an effective strategy for scaling the annotation process at a fraction of the cost of traditional annotation relying solely on human experts. The results are on par with the best performing model at the time of writing, namely GPT-4, at 10x less the cost. Our contribution is a set of features, their properties, definitions, and examples in a machine-readable format, along with the code for RhetAnn and the GPT prompts and fine-tuning procedures for advancing state-of-the-art interpretable propaganda technique detection.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2024.
Builds on
20 of 33 references.
References · 20
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 849
- 2021Do Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of their Prompts?cited by 324
- 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 306
- 2022Is GPT-3 a Good Data Annotator?cited by 208
- 2021Want To Reduce Labeling Cost? GPT-3 Can Helpcited by 196
- 2023AnnoLLM: Making Large Language Models to Be Better Crowdsourced Annotatorscited by 171
- 2023Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speechcited by 165
- 2019Fine-Grained Analysis of Propaganda in News Articlescited by 130
- 2023Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directionscited by 123
- 2023LLMaAA: Making Large Language Models as Active Annotatorscited by 78
8 more
- 2023Automated Annotation with Generative AI Requires Validationcited by 75
- 2023Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remarkcited by 54
- 2023ChatGPT: Beginning of an End of Manual Linguistic Data Annotation? Use Case of Automatic Genre Identificationcited by 45
- 2023Large Language Models as Annotators: Enhancing Generalization of NLP Models at Minimal Costcited by 33
- 2023Unlocking Practical Applications in Legal Domain: Evaluation of GPT for Zero-Shot Semantic Annotation of Legal Textscited by 32
- 2023Foundation Model Assisted Automatic Speech Emotion Recognition: Transcribing, Annotating, and Augmentingcited by 17
- 2021Interpretable Propaganda Detection in News Articlescited by 16
- 2023Leveraging Large Language Models and Weak Supervision for Social Media data annotation: an evaluation using COVID-19 self-reported vaccination tweetscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Polite But Boring? Trade-offs Between Engagement and Psychological Reactance to Chatbot Feedback Stylescited by 1
- 2026The Tag is the Signal: URL-Agnostic Credibility Scoring for Messages on Telegramcited by 0
- 2026Challenges in annotations by humans and LLMs: A case study of evaluative languagecited by 0
- 2026Challenges in annotations by humans and LLMs: A case study of evaluative language30 Jul 2026
- 2026Polite But Boring? Trade-offs Between Engagement and Psychological Reactance to Chatbot Feedback Styles28 Jan 2026
- 2026The Tag is the Signal: URL-Agnostic Credibility Scoring for Messages on Telegram19 Jan 2026