Matteo Guida

Francielle Vargas, Jackson Trager, Diego Alves et al.

Hate speech detection models rely on surface-level lexical features, increasing vulnerability to spurious correlations and limiting robustness, cultural contextualization, and interpretability. We propose Supervised Moral Rationale Attention (SMRA), the first self-explaining hate speech detection framework to incorporate moral rationales as direct supervision for attention alignment. Based on Moral Foundations Theory, SMRA aligns token-level attention with expert-annotated moral rationales, guiding models to attend to morally salient spans rather than spurious lexical patterns. Unlike prior rationale-supervised or post-hoc approaches, SMRA integrates moral rationale supervision directly into the training objective, producing inherently interpretable and contextualized explanations. To support our framework, we also introduce HateBRMoralXplain, a Brazilian Portuguese benchmark dataset annotated with hate labels, moral categories, token-level moral rationales, and socio-political metadata. Across binary hate speech detection and multi-label moral sentiment classification, SMRA consistently improves performance (e.g., +0.9 and +1.5 F1, respectively) while substantially enhancing explanation faithfulness, increasing IoU F1 (+7.4 pp) and Token F1 (+5.0 pp). Although explanations become more concise, sufficiency improves (+2.3 pp) and fairness remains stable, indicating more faithful rationales without performance or bias trade-offs

Yulia Otmakhova, Matteo Guida, Lea Frermann

Metaphors are powerful framing devices, yet their source domains alone do not fully explain the specific associations they evoke. We argue that the interplay between source domains and semantic frames determines how metaphors shape understanding of complex issues, and present a computational framework that allows to derive salient discourse metaphors through their source domains and semantic frames. Applying this framework to climate change news, we uncover not only well-known source domains but also reveal nuanced frame-level associations that distinguish how the issue is portrayed. In analyzing immigration discourse across political ideologies, we demonstrate that liberals and conservatives systematically employ different semantic frames within the same source domains, with conservatives favoring frames emphasizing uncontrollability and liberals choosing neutral or more ``victimizing'' semantic frames. Our work bridges conceptual metaphor theory and linguistics, providing the first NLP approach for discovery of discourse metaphors and fine-grained analysis of differences in metaphorical framing. Code, data and statistical scripts are available at https://github.com/julia-nixie/ConceptFrameMet.

Matteo Guida, Yulia Otmakhova, Eduard Hovy et al.

When a news article describes immigration as an "economic burden" or a "humanitarian crisis," it selectively emphasizes certain aspects of the issue. Although \textit{framing} shapes how the public interprets such issues, audiences do not absorb frames passively but actively reorganize the presented information. While this relationship between source content and audience response is well-documented in the social sciences, NLP approaches often ignore it, detecting frames in articles and responses in isolation. We present the first computational framework for large-scale analysis of framing across source content (news articles) and audience responses (reader comments). Methodologically, we refine frame labels and develop a framework that reconstructs dominant frames in articles and comments from sentence-level predictions, and aligns articles with topically relevant comments. Applying our framework across eleven topics and two news outlets, we find that frame reuse in comments correlates highly across outlets, while topic-specific patterns vary. We release a frame classifier that performs well on both articles and comments, a dataset of article and comment sentences manually labeled for frames, and a large-scale dataset of articles and comments with predicted frame labels.

Matteo Guida, Yulia Otmakhova, Eduard Hovy et al.

Automated large-scale analysis of public discussions around contested issues like abortion requires detecting and understanding the use of arguments. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in language processing tasks, their performance in mining topic-specific, pre-defined arguments in online comments remains underexplored. We evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs on three argument mining tasks using datasets comprising over 2,000 opinion comments across six polarizing topics. Quantitative evaluation suggests an overall strong performance across the three tasks, especially for large and fine-tuned LLMs, albeit at a significant environmental cost. However, a detailed error analysis revealed systematic shortcomings on long and nuanced comments and emotionally charged language, raising concerns for downstream applications like content moderation or opinion analysis. Our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for automated argument analysis in online comments.