Visual Framing for News Stance Detection via Image Generation

Much of the stance detection literature has examined short-form social media text, particularly tweets. Recent approaches have included fine-tuning pre-trained language models Liang et al. (2022), leveraging LLM reasoning Gatto et al. (2023); Zhang et al. (2024) and employing in-context learning Zhu et al. (2023); Cruickshank and Ng (2026). Multimodal stance detection methods that jointly utilize text and images have also emerged, including target-aware multimodal prompt tuning Liang et al. (2024), cross-modal fusion Weinzierl and Harabagiu (2023), multimodal alignment Zhang et al. (2025a), and image generation Zhang et al. (2025b). Recent studies have further explored zero-shot detection with LVLMs Weinzierl and Harabagiu (2024); AlShenaifi and Alangari (2026).

News stance detection remains relatively underexplored. Existing work has largely centered on headline- or sentence-level stance in contexts such as fake news detection or rumor verification Ferreira and Vlachos (2016); Pomerleau and Rao (2017); Hanselowski et al. (2018); Conforti et al. (2020), while studies of article-level stance toward social issues remain scarce Mascarell et al. (2021); Lee et al. (2025). Building on recent advances in multimodal stance detection Liang et al. (2024); Zhang et al. (2025b), we address this gap by generating visual representations that make implicit stance signals in news articles more explicit and leveraging them for article-level stance detection.

Framing involves selecting and emphasizing certain aspects of reality to promote particular interpretations Entman (1993), and visual framing concerns how such interpretive emphasis is conveyed through visual elements Messaris and Abraham (2001). Empirical studies in communication have operationalized frames through manual content analysis using predefined categories Coleman (2010). In the computational domain, framing analysis has emerged as an active research area, as documented by recent surveys Ali and Hassan (2022); Otmakhova et al. (2024); Vallejo et al. (2024). Earlier computational approaches primarily analyzed the textual modality using annotated corpora and supervised methods. Widely used resources include the Media Frames Corpus with fifteen generic policy frames Card et al. (2015), the Gun Violence Frame Corpus Liu et al. (2019a), and the multilingual SemEval-2023 benchmark covering nine languages Piskorski et al. (2023). More recent research has explored multimodal approaches, such as fusion-based approaches using paired headlines and lead images Tourni et al. (2021). Studies have also leveraged LLMs and LVLMs for frame analysis of news text and imagery Arora et al. (2025); Lu et al. (2026); El Damanhoury et al. (2026). Our study extends this line of research by using visual framing to guide image generation for article-level stance detection.

We first employ an LLM to specify visual framing features. The specification captures both the image content—that is, which actors, objects, or scenes should be included or excluded—and visual presentation, including style, composition, angle, distance, saturation, and luminosity. To construct this specification, we adapt Rodriguez and Dimitrova’s (2011) model of visual framing as an annotation schema for image generation. Because the original model does not define variables specifically for image generation, we use prior visual framing literature Kress and van Leeuwen (1996); Hall (1966); Barthes (1977); Messaris and Abraham (2001) to define annotatable features suitable for text-to-image generation. The theoretical grounding and operationalization of these features are described in Appendix C.2.

The resulting schema consists of four levels, as illustrated in Stage 1 of Figure 2. At the ideological level, the LLM identifies whose perspective or interests the image should serve. At the connotative level, it specifies the interpretive associations that the image should evoke beyond its literal depiction. For instance, when an article frames inter-ministerial cooperation as effective coordination, the image may include symbolic elements such as interlocking gears to convey integration and collective action. At the stylistic-semiotic level, the LLM assigns values to six features: style, composition, angle, distance, saturation, and luminosity. Together, these features shape the image’s visual presentation and tone. At the denotative level, the model determines which subjects, objects, or scenes should be included or excluded.

Given a news article $A$ and its target issue $T$ as input, an LLM annotates the ten features across the four levels and returns the visual framing specification in JSON format. Stage 1 derives this specification solely from these inputs, without predicting the article’s stance or accessing the gold label. Figure A7 shows the full prompt, and Figure A8 provides an example output.

Given the visual framing specification from Stage 1, we generate a news image using a T2I model. Among the ten features across four levels, we use eight features from the stylistic-semiotic and denotative levels. These levels provide explicit, visually renderable specifications, whereas the ideological and connotative levels capture more abstract interpretive information. Image $I$ is generated using the template-based prompt shown in Figure A5.

The final step is to predict the stance of article $A$ toward a target issue $T$. The detector model $M$ receives both the article text and the stance-aware image $I$ generated in Stage 2. We use an LVLM as $M$, with the prompt shown in Figure A4. VFStance aims to improve stance detection by combining the article text, which contains implicit stance cues, with a generated image designed to externalize stance-relevant framing signals. For VFStance (Text), the visual framing specification from Stage 1 is provided to the detector instead of $I$.

We use Gemini-3-flash as the LLM in Stage 1 and Gemini-3.1-flash-image (also known as Nano Banana 2) as the T2I model in Stage 2. The latter was selected for its multilingual support and image generation quality. For Stage 3, we employ Gemini-3-flash as the LVLM because it achieved the best stance detection performance among the three proprietary models evaluated in this study—Gemini-3-flash, GPT-5.4-mini, and Claude-4.6-sonnet. A comparison with open-model alternatives is provided in Appendix D.6.

Table 1 presents the article-level stance detection results on the K-News-Stance-MM test split, comparing VFStance with the baseline methods. We evaluated eleven fine-tuned baselines grouped into textual, visual, and multimodal methods, all of which were proposed in previous studies. These models were fine-tuned on samples from the training split. Further details are provided in Appendix C.

Textual baselines include RoBERTa Liu et al. (2019b), a fine-tuned classifier based on a masked language model; CoT Embeddings Gatto et al. (2023), which trains RoBERTa on chain-of-thought reasoning traces generated by an LLM; LKI-BART Zhang et al. (2024), which injects text–target relational knowledge extracted by an LLM into a BART model; and PT-HCL Liang et al. (2022), which separates target-invariant and target-specific features via contrastive learning.

Visual baselines include ResNet He et al. (2016), a convolutional neural network; ViT Dosovitskiy et al. (2021), a vision transformer; and SwinT Liu et al. (2021), a hierarchical vision transformer with shifted window self-attention.

Multimodal baselines include RoBERTa+ViT, which concatenates textual and visual [CLS] representations; CLIP Radford et al. (2021), which concatenates text and image embeddings from pretrained CLIP encoders; TMPT Liang et al. (2024), a target-aware multimodal prompt-tuning method; and T-MAD Zhang et al. (2025a), a target-driven multimodal alignment method. Additionally, we evaluated the three proprietary LVLMs used as Stage 3 backbones in the proposed method using a straightforward prompting strategy.

Three key observations emerge from Table 1. First, the three LVLMs exhibited strong performance across the three baseline categories, outperforming all fine-tuned methods (p$<$0.01). Among them, Gemini-3-flash consistently achieved the best performance across categories (p$<$0.01), supporting its use as the backbone for VFStance. Second, VFStance with Gemini-3-flash as the backbone achieved the best overall performance, with an accuracy of 0.746 and a macro F1 score of 0.747. The proposed method outperformed all baselines (p$<$0.01), including both LVLM-based and fine-tuned methods. This result provides empirical support for the effectiveness of the proposed framework for article-level stance detection. Third, in terms of class-wise prediction performance, VFStance with Gemini-3-flash achieved higher F1 scores for the supportive and oppositional labels than the multimodal baseline, increasing F1${}_{\text{Supportive}}$ from 0.73 to 0.78 (p$<$0.01) and F1${}_{\text{Oppositional}}$ from 0.788 to 0.813 (p$<$0.01). By contrast, F1${}_{\text{Neutral}}$ slightly decreased from 0.659 to 0.649 (p$<$0.01). These findings suggest that the proposed method is particularly effective at making directional stance cues more explicit.

To investigate the contribution of visual framing to image generation, we compared VFStance with variants that use alternative image generation methods in Stage 2; the results are presented in Table 2. Meta-Prompting instructs an LLM to generate a prompt for a T2I model by specifying the task goal without using a visual framing schema. Direct T2I passes the news text directly to the T2I model to generate stance-aware images for prediction. EAIG4SD is an image generation framework proposed for stance detection on tweets Zhang et al. (2025b) and, to our knowledge, is the only prior method that uses image generation for stance detection. All three methods achieved lower accuracy and macro F1 scores than VFStance, with gaps of at least 0.025 in accuracy and 0.02 in macro F1 (p$<$0.01). These results provide empirical support for the role of visual framing to image generation and, consequently, to the performance gains achieved by VFStance.

Given the effectiveness of visual framing in image generation identified above, we next investigated whether image generation itself is necessary. We compare VFStance with two alternative methods that do not use image generation but remain grounded in visual framing; their performance is reported in Table 3. VFStance (Text) uses the visual framing specification from Stage 1 as input context for the LVLM in Stage 3 while skipping image generation in Stage 2. 1-Step Prompting instructs an LVLM, Gemini-3-flash, to perform visual framing annotation and stance prediction in a single step.

The results show that VFStance achieves statistically significant improvements over both alternatives without image generation (p$<$0.01), indicating that image generation provides an additional performance gain beyond the contribution of visual framing identified in Table 2. Another notable finding is the strong performance of VFStance (Text), which outperforms all baseline methods in Table 1, as well as 1-Step Prompting. These results provide empirical evidence that visual framing contributes substantially even when represented only as a textual specification rather than rendered as an image. Considering the cost–accuracy trade-off between the two variants (Table A4), VFStance and VFStance (Text) may serve different practical needs: users may prefer VFStance (Text) when computational cost is the primary concern and thus omit image generation, whereas VFStance is preferable when maximizing detection accuracy is the priority.

We present ablation studies to support our choice of the denotative and stylistic-semiotic levels in Stage 2, selected from the four levels produced by the LLM-based annotation in Stage 1. In each comparison, only the features from the selected levels are used in the image-generation prompt for Stage 2, while all four levels are annotated identically in Stage 1. Table 4 presents the level-wise ablation results, showing that the two levels adopted in VFStance are critical for stance detection performance, whereas the connotative and ideological levels are ineffective and even reduce accuracy and macro F1 when included. This finding suggests that the abstract nature of the two excluded levels makes them difficult to render visually in a way that makes stance signals more explicit, consistent with prior findings on the difficulty of generating abstract concepts Liao et al. (2024).

Given the effectiveness of these two levels, we further examined whether annotating the visual framing specification across all four levels in Stage 1 is necessary. Specifically, we measured the performance of VFStance when only the stylistic-semiotic and denotative levels were included in the Stage 1 annotation schema. Table 5 shows that additionally annotating the connotative and ideological features improves the effectiveness of the resulting annotations for the eight denotative and stylistic-semiotic features, yielding a 0.01 increase in macro F1. According to the hierarchical structure of Rodriguez and Dimitrova (2011)’s model, the connotative and ideological levels provide interpretive context for lower visual elements, which may partially explain this performance gain.

To assess whether VFStance is effective across datasets and languages, we evaluated it on CheeSE Mascarell et al. (2021), a German article-level news stance detection dataset. Since CheeSE does not provide original news images, VFStance was compared against seven textual baseline methods: three LVLM-based and four fine-tuned methods. As shown in Table 6, VFStance achieved higher accuracy and macro F1 scores across multiple LVLM backbones. Gemini-3-flash again performed best, achieving an accuracy of 0.618 and a macro F1 score of 0.62, outperforming all baseline methods by a substantial margin (p$<$0.01). These results, together with the Korean-language findings above, suggest that VFStance can be effective across languages. To further support this finding, we provide supplementary results on translated versions of K-News-Stance-MM in four languages in Appendix D.4.

VFStance employs three models across its corresponding stages. Encouragingly, as discussed in Section 5, VFStance (Text) offers a computationally efficient alternative by omitting image generation while still outperforming all baseline methods. This further demonstrates the effectiveness of the visual framing schema used in the proposed method. Considering the cost–accuracy trade-off (Appendix D.2), VFStance (Text) could be used when computational cost is the primary concern, whereas VFStance remains the strongest choice when maximizing detection accuracy is the priority.

The primary testbed, K-News-Stance-MM, is a Korean corpus, which limits the scope of multilingual evaluation in this study. This choice was necessary because K-News-Stance-MM is the first and only dataset to provide publisher images for article-level stance detection, which are required to compare VFStance with visual and multimodal baselines. To provide additional evidence of multilingual effectiveness, we conducted experiments on CheeSE, a German text-only dataset, and on LLM-translated versions of K-News-Stance-MM in four languages (Appendix D.4). Future studies could construct article-level stance detection datasets with accompanying news images by adapting the guidelines provided by Lee et al. (2025).

Proprietary models were selected as primary backbones for VFStance because of their stronger language understanding, reasoning, and generation capabilities. We provide supplementary results for open-weight models in Appendix D.6, where they achieved lower performance. Because the framework is modular and model-agnostic, future work could evaluate a broader range of models and incorporate additional training to further improve detection accuracy.

K-News-Stance-MM extends an existing dataset Lee et al. (2025) built from news articles distributed through the Naver News platform. To respect the intellectual property rights of the original news publishers, K-News-Stance-MM is released under gated access with a custom Data Use Agreement: prospective users must submit an access request describing their research purpose and agree to terms that restrict use to non-commercial academic research and prohibit redistribution. The news data include the names of public figures, but private individuals are anonymized when present; thus, the dataset does not contain any personally identifiable information about private individuals, as manually verified for all samples in K-News-Stance-MM. CheeSE Mascarell et al. (2021) is a publicly released benchmark and is used under its original release terms.

We recruited 200 Korean native speakers residing in South Korea through a survey panel provider. The task took approximately 10 minutes, with compensation of about USD 3.6, which exceeded the Korean statutory minimum hourly wage. All participants provided informed consent and could withdraw at any time. The study collected no sensitive personal information as defined by the Korean Personal Information Protection Act. Two potential risks were disclosed in advance: minimal-risk discomfort from politically contested content and the indirect inference of attitudes from stance judgments. Responses contained only randomly assigned IDs; therefore, individual records could not be selectively deleted after submission, a limitation that was also disclosed before consent.

Images generated by VFStance could be repurposed for reader-facing applications, as demonstrated in the user study in Section 6. However, such use requires careful consideration because T2I models may reproduce or amplify social biases. Before its use, generated images should be clearly labeled as synthetic and reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable defamation, personality-rights, and synthetic-media regulations.

We used AI-assisted language editing tools, primarily ChatGPT, exclusively for grammar checking and improving readability.