Agenda-based Narrative Extraction: Steering Pathfinding Algorithms with Large Language Models

arXiv cs.CL / 4/1/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper proposes “agenda-based narrative extraction,” which integrates large language models into Narrative Trails-style pathfinding to steer storyline construction toward user-specified perspectives while preserving coherence.
  • At each step, the LLM ranks candidate documents by alignment with an agenda, and running the method with different agendas produces different storylines from the same corpus.
  • Experiments on a news-article corpus (64 endpoint pairs, 6 agendas) using LLM judges (Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.1) show improved agenda alignment versus keyword matching, with only a small coherence decrease (2.2%).
  • The method is reported to be robust against unsupported “counter-agendas,” which score uniformly low (2.2–2.5), suggesting it does not fabricate narratives beyond the source material.
  • Overall, the work frames agenda steering as a bridge between prior approaches optimized for interactivity/multi-storylines and those optimized for coherence.

Abstract

Existing narrative extraction methods face a trade-off between coherence, interactivity, and multi-storyline support. Narrative Maps supports rich interaction and generates multiple storylines as a byproduct of its coverage constraints, though this comes at the cost of individual path coherence. Narrative Trails achieves high coherence through maximum capacity path optimization but provides no mechanism for user guidance or multiple perspectives. We introduce agenda-based narrative extraction, a method that bridges this gap by integrating large language models into the Narrative Trails pathfinding process to steer storyline construction toward user-specified perspectives. Our approach uses an LLM at each step to rank candidate documents based on their alignment with a given agenda while maintaining narrative coherence. Running the algorithm with different agendas yields different storylines through the same corpus. We evaluated our approach on a news article corpus using LLM judges with Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.1, measuring both coherence and agenda alignment across 64 endpoint pairs and 6 agendas. LLM-driven steering achieves 9.9% higher alignment than keyword matching on semantic agendas (p=0.017), with 13.3% improvement on \textit{Regime Crackdown} specifically (p=0.037), while keyword matching remains competitive on agendas with literal keyword overlap. The coherence cost is minimal: LLM steering reduces coherence by only 2.2% compared to the agenda-agnostic baseline. Counter-agendas that contradict the source material score uniformly low (2.2-2.5) across all methods, confirming that steering cannot fabricate unsupported narratives.