Papers › HQP: A Human-Annotated Dataset for Detecting Online Propaganda
HQP: A Human-Annotated Dataset for Detecting Online Propaganda
Abdurahman Maarouf, Dominik Bär, Dominique Geissler, Stefan Feuerriegel
Online propaganda poses a severe threat to the integrity of societies. However, existing datasets for detecting online propaganda have a key limitation: they were annotated using weak labels that can be noisy and even incorrect. To address this limitation, our work makes the following contributions: (1) We present HQP: a novel dataset (N = 30,000) for detecting online propaganda with high-quality labels. To the best of our knowledge, HQP is the first large-scale dataset for detecting online propaganda that was created through human annotation. (2) We show empirically that state-of-the-art language models fail in detecting online propaganda when trained with weak labels (AUC: 64.03). In contrast, state-of-the-art language models can accurately detect online propaganda when trained with our high-quality labels (AUC: 92.25), which is an improvement of ~44%. (3) We show that prompt-based learning using a small sample of high-quality labels can still achieve a reasonable performance (AUC: 80.27) while significantly reducing the cost of labeling. (4) We extend HQP to HQP+ to test how well propaganda across different contexts can be detected. Crucially, our work highlights the importance of high-quality labels for sensitive NLP tasks such as propaganda detection.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections