Anna Wróblewska

Soveatin Kuntur, Maciej Krzywda, Anna Wróblewska et al.

The rapid spread of online misinformation has led to increasingly complex detection models, including large language models and hybrid architectures. However, their computational cost and deployment limitations raise concerns about practical applicability. In this work, we benchmark graph neural networks (GNNs) against non-graph-based machine learning methods under controlled and comparable conditions. We evaluate lightweight GNN architectures (GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT, ChebNet) against Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machines, and Multilayer Perceptrons across seven public datasets in English, Indonesian, and Polish. All models use identical TF-IDF features to isolate the impact of relational structure. Performance is measured using F1 score, with inference time reported to assess efficiency. GNNs consistently outperform non-graph baselines across all datasets. For example, GraphSAGE achieves 96.8% F1 on Kaggle and 91.9% on WELFake, compared to 73.2% and 66.8% for MLP, respectively. On COVID-19, GraphSAGE reaches 90.5% F1 vs. 74.9%, while ChebNet attains 79.1% vs. 66.4% on FakeNewsNet. These gains are achieved with comparable or lower inference times. Overall, the results show that classic GNNs remain effective and efficient, challenging the need for increasingly complex architectures in misinformation detection.

Soveatin Kuntur, Panggih Kusuma Ningrum, Anna Wróblewska et al.

We propose a lightweight hybrid approach to clickbait detection that combines OpenAI semantic embeddings with six compact heuristic features capturing stylistic and informational cues. To improve efficiency, embeddings are reduced using PCA and evaluated with XGBoost, GraphSAGE, and GCN classifiers. While the simplified feature design yields slightly lower F1-scores, graph-based models achieve competitive performance with substantially reduced inference time. High ROC--AUC values further indicate strong discrimination capability, supporting reliable detection of clickbait headlines under varying decision thresholds.

Filip J. Kucia, Anirban Chakraborty, Anna Wróblewska

Despite growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for educational assessment, it remains unclear how closely they align with human scoring. We present a systematic evaluation of instruction-tuned LLMs across three open essay-scoring datasets (ASAP 2.0, ELLIPSE, and DREsS) that cover both holistic and analytic scoring. We analyze agreement with human consensus scores, directional bias, and the stability of bias estimates. Our results show that strong open-weight models achieve moderate to high agreement with humans on holistic scoring (Quadratic Weighted Kappa about 0.6), but this does not transfer uniformly to analytic scoring. In particular, we observe large and stable negative directional bias on Lower-Order Concern (LOC) traits, such as Grammar and Conventions, meaning that models often score these traits more harshly than human raters. We also find that concise keyword-based prompts generally outperform longer rubric-style prompts in multi-trait analytic scoring. To quantify the amount of data needed to detect these systematic deviations, we compute the minimum sample size at which a 95% bootstrap confidence interval for the mean bias excludes zero. This analysis shows that LOC bias is often detectable with very small validation sets, whereas Higher-Order Concern (HOC) traits typically require much larger samples. These findings support a bias-correction-first deployment strategy: instead of relying on raw zero-shot scores, systematic score offsets can be estimated and corrected using small human-labeled bias-estimation sets, without requiring large-scale fine-tuning.