aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates how zero-shot large language models can serve as a scalable, cost-effective tool for cross-lingual analysis of political discourse at an unprecedented scale. By processing 18 million tweets across 19 countries, the research validates LLMs' ability to match human annotations while revealing distinct patterns in negative campaigning driven by party ideology and coalition status. The work highlights a significant methodological shift where AI enables deep comparative insights into electoral strategies that were previously limited by annotation costs.
Measuring Negative Campaigning across Languages with Large Language Models: A Study of 18 Million Tweets in 19 Countries
arXiv:2507.17636v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Negative campaigning is a defining feature of electoral competition, yet comparative research on its drivers has remained limited by the high cost and limited scalability of existing classification methods. This study makes two key contributions. First, it evaluates zero-shot large language models (LLMs) as a scalable method for cross-lingual classification of negative campaigning. Using benchmark datasets in ten languages, we show that LLM classifications closely match native-speaker human annotations while outperforming conventional supervised models. Second, we leverage this approach to conduct, to our knowledge, the largest cross-national study of negative campaigning to date, analyzing 18 million tweets posted by parliamentarians in 19 European countries between 2017 and 2022. Building on a strategic incentives framework, we argue that governing and coalition-oriented parties face stronger reputational constraints against negative campaigning, whereas opposition and outsider parties face weaker constraints. We further expect parties located away from the ideological center, especially on the radical right, to rely more heavily on confrontational rhetoric. The results support these expectations: cabinet parties are less negative, while ideologically non-centrist parties--most notably radical right parties--are substantially more negative. The study thus provides new comparative evidence on the party-level foundations of campaign negativity while demonstrating how LLMs can transform the scale, consistency, and replicability of research on political discourse across languages and institutional contexts.
Abstract:Negative campaigning is a defining feature of electoral competition, yet comparative research on its drivers has remained limited by the high cost and limited scalability of existing classification methods. This study makes two key contributions. First, it evaluates zero-shot large language models (LLMs) as a scalable method for cross-lingual classification of negative campaigning. Using benchmark datasets in ten languages, we show that LLM classifications closely match native-speaker human annotations while outperforming conventional supervised models. Second, we leverage this approach to conduct, to our knowledge, the largest cross-national study of negative campaigning to date, analyzing 18 million tweets posted by parliamentarians in 19 European countries between 2017 and 2022. Building on a strategic incentives framework, we argue that governing and coalition-oriented parties face stronger reputational constraints against negative campaigning, whereas opposition and outsider parties face weaker constraints. We further expect parties located away from the ideological center, especially on the radical right, to rely more heavily on confrontational rhetoric. The results support these expectations: cabinet parties are less negative, while ideologically non-centrist parties--most notably radical right parties--are substantially more negative. The study thus provides new comparative evidence on the party-level foundations of campaign negativity while demonstrating how LLMs can transform the scale, consistency, and replicability of research on political discourse across languages and institutional contexts.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2507.17636 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2507.17636v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.17636 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 307 words
Related coverage
AI Voice Phishing Performs on Par With Human Scammers at a Fraction of the Cost
LessWrong · Jul 20, 2026
Fable is SOTA at CIFAR Speedrun (& specification gaming)
LessWrong · Jul 20, 2026
Salesforce after Dreamforce: How the CRM giant can grow beyond its own interface
SiliconANGLE · Sep 19, 2026

A Candid Abacus AI Review: The All-in-One AI Platform for Professionals & Enterprises
KDnuggets · Sep 10, 2026