Vera Schmitt

Tarek Mahmoud, Veronika Solopova, Premtim Sahitaj et al.

Temporal language does more than place events on a timeline. In news discourse, references to the past, present, and future can function as rhetorical devices that shape interpretation and persuasion. Here, we study temporal framing, defined as the persuasive use of time-related language to structure meaning rather than to report chronology. We propose a taxonomy of eight temporal frames grounded in prior work on temporality and framing, and we realize it through expert annotation of a multilingual news corpus. The resulting dataset includes 458 English and German news articles, with over 2K temporally framed sentences and approximately 3K temporal framing annotations identified from a corpus of more than 20K sentences. We analyze frame prevalence, co-occurrence patterns, and lexical cues, and evaluate temporal framing detection using supervised fine-tuning and zero-shot classification. Our experiments show that temporal framing is learnable at the sentence level, with supervised models substantially outperforming zero-shot approaches. We publicly release the corpus to support future research on temporal framing: https://mbzuai-nlp.github.io/temporal-framing/.

Qianli Wang, Tatiana Anikina, Nils Feldhus et al.

Natural language explanations (NLEs) are vital for elucidating the reasoning behind large language model (LLM) decisions. Many techniques have been developed to generate NLEs using LLMs. However, like humans, LLMs might not always produce optimal NLEs on first attempt. Inspired by human learning processes, we introduce Cross-Refine, which employs role modeling by deploying two LLMs as generator and critic, respectively. The generator outputs a first NLE and then refines this initial explanation using feedback and suggestions provided by the critic. Cross-Refine does not require any supervised training data or additional training. We validate Cross-Refine across three NLP tasks using three state-of-the-art open-source LLMs through automatic and human evaluation. We select Self-Refine (Madaan et al., 2023) as the baseline, which only utilizes self-feedback to refine the explanations. Our findings from automatic evaluation and a user study indicate that Cross-Refine outperforms Self-Refine. Meanwhile, Cross-Refine can perform effectively with less powerful LLMs, whereas Self-Refine only yields strong results with ChatGPT. Additionally, we conduct an ablation study to assess the importance of feedback and suggestions. Both of them play an important role in refining explanations. We further evaluate Cross-Refine on a bilingual dataset in English and German.

Simon Ostermann, Daniil Gurgurov, Tanja Baeumel et al.

Post-training adaptation of language models is commonly achieved through parameter updates or input-based methods such as fine-tuning, parameter-efficient adaptation, and prompting. In parallel, a growing body of work modifies internal activations at inference time to influence model behavior, an approach known as steering. Despite increasing use, steering is rarely analyzed within the same conceptual framework as established adaptation methods. In this work, we argue that steering should be regarded as a form of model adaptation. We introduce a set of functional criteria for adaptation methods and use them to compare steering approaches with classical alternatives. This analysis positions steering as a distinct adaptation paradigm based on targeted interventions in activation space, enabling local and reversible behavioral change without parameter updates. The resulting framing clarifies how steering relates to existing methods, motivating a unified taxonomy for model adaptation.

Qianli Wang, Nils Feldhus, Pepa Atanasova et al.

Quantization is widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs), yet its effects on self-explanations (SEs) remain unexplored. SEs, generated by LLMs to justify their own outputs, require reasoning about the model's own decision-making process, a capability that may exhibit particular sensitivity to quantization. As SEs are increasingly relied upon for transparency in high-stakes applications, understanding whether and to what extent quantization degrades SE quality and faithfulness is critical. To address this gap, we examine two types of SEs: natural language explanations (NLEs) and counterfactual examples, generated by LLMs quantized using three common techniques at distinct bit widths. Our findings indicate that quantization typically leads to moderate declines in both SE quality (up to 4.4\%) and faithfulness (up to 2.38\%). The user study further demonstrates that quantization diminishes both the coherence and trustworthiness of SEs (up to 8.5\%). Compared to smaller models, larger models show limited resilience to quantization in terms of SE quality but better maintain faithfulness. Moreover, no quantization technique consistently excels across task accuracy, SE quality, and faithfulness. Given that quantization's impact varies by context, we recommend validating SE quality for specific use cases, especially for NLEs, which show greater sensitivity. Nonetheless, the relatively minor deterioration in SE quality and faithfulness does not undermine quantization's effectiveness as a model compression technique.

Qianli Wang, Van Bach Nguyen, Yihong Liu et al.

Counterfactuals refer to minimally edited inputs that cause a model's prediction to change, serving as a promising approach to explaining the model's behavior. Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating English counterfactuals and demonstrate multilingual proficiency. However, their effectiveness in generating multilingual counterfactuals remains unclear. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive study on multilingual counterfactuals. We first conduct automatic evaluations on both directly generated counterfactuals in the target languages and those derived via English translation across six languages. Although translation-based counterfactuals offer higher validity than their directly generated counterparts, they demand substantially more modifications and still fall short of matching the quality of the original English counterfactuals. Second, we find the patterns of edits applied to high-resource European-language counterfactuals to be remarkably similar, suggesting that cross-lingual perturbations follow common strategic principles. Third, we identify and categorize four main types of errors that consistently appear in the generated counterfactuals across languages. Finally, we reveal that multilingual counterfactual data augmentation (CDA) yields larger model performance improvements than cross-lingual CDA, especially for lower-resource languages. Yet, the imperfections of the generated counterfactuals limit gains in model performance and robustness.

Jing Yang, Moritz Hechtbauer, Elisabeth Khalilov et al.

For socially sensitive tasks like hate speech detection, the quality of explanations from Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for factors like user trust and model alignment. While Persona prompting (PP) is increasingly used as a way to steer model towards user-specific generation, its effect on model rationales remains underexplored. We investigate how LLM-generated rationales vary when conditioned on different simulated demographic personas. Using datasets annotated with word-level rationales, we measure agreement with human annotations from different demographic groups, and assess the impact of PP on model bias and human alignment. Our evaluation across three LLMs results reveals three key findings: (1) PP improving classification on the most subjective task (hate speech) but degrading rationale quality. (2) Simulated personas fail to align with their real-world demographic counterparts, and high inter-persona agreement shows models are resistant to significant steering. (3) Models exhibit consistent demographic biases and a strong tendency to over-flag content as harmful, regardless of PP. Our findings reveal a critical trade-off: while PP can improve classification in socially-sensitive tasks, it often comes at the cost of rationale quality and fails to mitigate underlying biases, urging caution in its application.

Jing Yang, Nils Feldhus, Salar Mohtaj et al.

Despite advances in Natural Language Generation (NLG), evaluation remains challenging. Although various new metrics and LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) methods are proposed, human judgment persists as the gold standard. To systematically review how NLG evaluation has evolved, we employ an automatic information extraction scheme to gather key information from NLG papers, focusing on different evaluation methods (metrics, LaaJ and human evaluation). With extracted metadata from 14,171 papers across four major conferences (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, and INLG) over the past six years, we reveal several critical findings: (1) Task Divergence: While Dialogue Generation demonstrates a rapid shift toward LaaJ (>40% in 2025), Machine Translation remains locked into n-gram metrics, and Question Answering exhibits a substantial decline in the proportion of studies conducting human evaluation. (2) Metric Inertia: Despite the development of semantic metrics, general-purpose metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE) continue to be widely used across tasks without empirical justification, often lacking the discriminative power to distinguish between specific quality criteria. (3) Human-LaaJ Divergence: Our association analysis challenges the assumption that LLMs act as mere proxies for humans; LaaJ and human evaluations prioritize very different signals, and explicit validation is scarce (<8% of papers comparing the two), with only moderate to low correlation. Based on these observations, we derive practical recommendations to improve the rigor of future NLG evaluation.

Nils Feldhus, Tanja Baeumel, Elena Golimblevskaia et al.

LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant paradigm for grading model outputs at scale, yet the same model assigns systematically different scores when its output format changes (e.g., a 1-5 rating vs. a True/False label). Existing diagnoses of these format-induced inconsistencies stop at the input-output level. Using Position-aware Edge Attribution Patching (PEAP), we causally investigate the internal mechanism in Gemma-3, Qwen2.5, and Llama-3. We find that judgments across structured understanding and open-ended preference tasks share a sparse, generalized Latent Evaluator sub-graph in the mid-to-late multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs); zero-ablating it collapses judgment while preserving world knowledge in architecturally modular models. By structurally decoupling abstract judging from output formatting, we provide a mechanistic account of format-induced inconsistency on the open-weight models we study: a continuous judgment signal computed in the shared trunk is mapped through fragile, format-specific terminal branches, enabling format-independent preference to be isolated downstream of the requested output format. Our findings imply that benchmark-level reliability comparisons across formats are partially measuring formatter geometry rather than evaluation quality.

Max Upravitelev, Veronika Solopova, Jing Yang et al.

Predicting narrative similarity can be understood as an inherently interpretive task: different, equally valid readings of the same text can produce divergent interpretations and thus different similarity judgments, posing a fundamental challenge for semantic evaluation benchmarks that encode a single ground truth. Rather than treating this multiperspectivity as a challenge to overcome, we propose to incorporate it in the decision making process of predictive systems. To explore this strategy, we created an ensemble of 31 LLM personas. These range from practitioners following interpretive frameworks to more intuitive, lay-style characters. Our experiments were conducted on the SemEval-2026 Task 4 dataset, where the system achieved an accuracy score of 0.705. Accuracy improves with ensemble size, consistent with Condorcet Jury Theorem-like dynamics under weakened independence. Practitioner personas perform worse individually but produce less correlated errors, yielding larger ensemble gains under majority voting. Our error analysis reveals a consistent negative association between gender-focused interpretive vocabulary and accuracy across all persona categories, suggesting either attention to dimensions not relevant for the benchmark or valid interpretations absent from the ground truth. This finding underscores the need for evaluation frameworks that account for interpretive plurality.

Vera Schmitt, Niklas Kruse, Premtim Sahitaj et al.

Art. 50 II of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act mandates dual transparency for AI-generated content: outputs must be labeled in both human-understandable and machine-readable form for automated verification. This requirement, entering into force in August 2026, collides with fundamental constraints of current generative AI systems. Using synthetic data generation and automated fact-checking as diagnostic use cases, we show that compliance cannot be reduced to post-hoc labeling. In fact-checking pipelines, provenance tracking is not feasible under iterative editorial workflows and non-deterministic LLM outputs; moreover, the assistive-function exemption does not apply, as such systems actively assign truth values rather than supporting editorial presentation. In synthetic data generation, persistent dual-mode marking is paradoxical: watermarks surviving human inspection risk being learned as spurious features during training, while marks suited for machine verification are fragile under standard data processing. Across both domains, three structural gaps obstruct compliance: (a) absent cross-platform marking formats for interleaved human-AI outputs; (b) misalignment between the regulation's 'reliability' criterion and probabilistic model behavior; and (c) missing guidance for adapting disclosures to heterogeneous user expertise. Closing these gaps requires transparency to be treated as an architectural design requirement, demanding interdisciplinary research across legal semantics, AI engineering, and human-centered desi

Lynn Janzen, Üveys Eroglu, Dorothea Kolossa et al.

LLMs are increasingly embedded in programming workflows, from code generation to automated code review. Yet, how gendered communication styles interact with LLM-assisted programming and code review remains underexplored. We present a mixed-methods pilot study examining whether gender-related linguistic differences in prompts influence code generation outcomes and code review decisions. Across three complementary studies, we analyze (i) collected real-world coding prompts, (ii) a controlled user study, in which developers solve identical programming tasks with LLM assistance, and (iii) an LLM-based simulated evaluation framework that systematically varies gender-coded prompt styles and reviewer personas. We find that gender-related differences in prompting style are subtle but measurable, with female-authored prompts exhibiting more indirect and involved language, which does not translate into consistent gaps in functional correctness or static code quality. For LLM code review, in contrast, we observe systematic biases: on average, models approve female-authored code more, despite comparable quality. Controlled experiments show that gender-coded prompt style affect code length and maintainability, while reviewer behavior varies across models. Our findings suggest that fairness risks in LLM-assisted programming arise less from generation accuracy than from LLM evaluation, as LLMs are increasingly deployed as automated code reviewers.

Max Upravitelev, Veronika Solopova, Charlott Jakob et al.

Detecting climate disinformation narratives typically relies on fixed taxonomies, which do not accommodate emerging narratives. Thus, we re-frame narrative detection as a retrieval task: given a narrative's core message as a query, rank texts from a corpus by alignment with that narrative. This formulation requires no predefined label set and can accommodate emerging narratives. We repurpose three climate disinformation datasets (CARDS, Climate Obstruction, climate change subset of PolyNarrative) for retrieval evaluation and propose SpecFi, a framework that generates hypothetical documents to bridge the gap between abstract narrative descriptions and their concrete textual instantiations. SpecFi uses community summaries from graph-based community detection as few-shot examples for generation, achieving a MAP of 0.505 on CARDS without access to narrative labels. We further introduce narrative variance, an embedding-based difficulty metric, and show via partial correlation analysis that standard retrieval degrades on high-variance narratives (BM25 loses 63.4% of MAP), while SpecFi-CS remains robust (32.7% loss). Our analysis also reveals that unsupervised community summaries converge on descriptions close to expert-crafted taxonomies, suggesting that graph-based methods can surface narrative structure from unlabeled text.

Lukas Stähelin, Veronika Solopova, Max Upravitelev et al.

Propaganda detection in social media is challenging due to noisy, short texts and low annotation agreements. We introduce a new intent-focused taxonomy of propaganda techniques and compare it against an established, higher-agreement schema. Along three dimensions (model portfolio, schema effects, and prompting strategy) we evaluate the taxonomies as a classification task with the help of four language models (GPT-4.1-nano, Phi-4 14B, Qwen2.5-14B, Qwen3-14B). Our results show that fine-tuning is essential, since it transforms weak zero-shot baselines into competitive systems and reveals methodological differences that are hidden using base models. Across schemas, the Qwen models achieve the strongest overall performance, and Phi-4 14B consistently outperforms GPT-4.1-nano. Our hierarchical prompting method (HiPP), which predicts fine-grained techniques before aggregating them, is especially beneficial after fine-tuning and on the more ambiguous, low-agreement taxonomy, while remaining competitive on the simpler schema. The HQP dataset, annotated with the new intent-based labels, provides a richer lens on propaganda's strategic goals and a challenging benchmark for future work on robust, real-world detection.

Premtim Sahitaj, Jawan Kolanowski, Ariana Sahitaj et al.

Fact-checking articles encode rich supporting evidence and reasoning, yet this evidence remains largely inaccessible to automated verification systems due to unstructured presentation. We introduce PrimeFacts, a methodology and resource for extracting fine-grained evidence from full fact-checking articles. We compile 13,106 PolitiFact articles with claims, verdicts, and all referenced sources, and we identify 49,718 in-article hyperlinks as natural anchors to pinpoint key evidence. Our framework leverages large language models (LLMs) to rewrite these anchor sentences into stand-alone, context-independent premises and investigates the extraction of additional implicit evidence. In evaluations on cross-article evidence retrieval and claim verification, the extracted premises substantially improve performance. Decontextualized evidence yields higher retrievability, achieving up to a 30 percent relative gain in Mean Reciprocal Rank over verbatim sentences, and using the evidence for verdict prediction raises Macro-F1 by 10-20 points over the baseline. These gains are consistent across different verdict granularities (2-class vs. 5-class) and model architectures. A qualitative analysis indicates that the decontextualized premises remain faithful to the original sources. Our work highlights the promise of reusing fact-checkers' evidence for automation and provides a large-scale resource of structured evidence from real-world fact-checks.

Navid Ashrafi, Vera Schmitt, Robert P. Spang et al.

Preservation of private user data is of paramount importance for high Quality of Experience (QoE) and acceptability, particularly with services treating sensitive data, such as IT-based health services. Whereas anonymization techniques were shown to be prone to data re-identification, synthetic data generation has gradually replaced anonymization since it is relatively less time and resource-consuming and more robust to data leakage. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have been used for generating synthetic datasets, especially GAN frameworks adhering to the differential privacy phenomena. This research compares state-of-the-art GAN-based models for synthetic data generation to generate time-series synthetic medical records of dementia patients which can be distributed without privacy concerns. Predictive modeling, autocorrelation, and distribution analysis are used to assess the Quality of Generating (QoG) of the generated data. The privacy preservation of the respective models is assessed by applying membership inference attacks to determine potential data leakage risks. Our experiments indicate the superiority of the privacy-preserving GAN (PPGAN) model over other models regarding privacy preservation while maintaining an acceptable level of QoG. The presented results can support better data protection for medical use cases in the future.

Premtim Sahitaj, Iffat Maab, Junichi Yamagishi et al.

Fact-checking is necessary to address the increasing volume of misinformation. Traditional fact-checking relies on manual analysis to verify claims, but it is slow and resource-intensive. This study establishes baseline comparisons for Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) using Large Language Models (LLMs) across multiple labeling schemes (binary, three-class, five-class) and extends traditional claim verification by incorporating analysis, verdict classification, and explanation in a structured setup to provide comprehensive justifications for real-world claims. We evaluate Llama-3 models of varying sizes (3B, 8B, 70B) on 17,856 claims collected from PolitiFact (2007-2024) using evidence retrieved via restricted web searches. We utilize TIGERScore as a reference-free evaluation metric to score the justifications. Our results show that larger LLMs consistently outperform smaller LLMs in classification accuracy and justification quality without fine-tuning. We find that smaller LLMs in a one-shot scenario provide comparable task performance to fine-tuned Small Language Models (SLMs) with large context sizes, while larger LLMs consistently surpass them. Evidence integration improves performance across all models, with larger LLMs benefiting most. Distinguishing between nuanced labels remains challenging, emphasizing the need for further exploration of labeling schemes and alignment with evidences. Our findings demonstrate the potential of retrieval-augmented AFC with LLMs.

Qianli Wang, Mingyang Wang, Nils Feldhus et al.

Quantization methods are widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs). While prior research has extensively investigated the degradation of various LLM capabilities due to quantization, its effects on model explainability and interpretability, which are crucial for understanding decision-making processes, remain unexplored. To address this gap, we conduct comprehensive experiments using three common quantization techniques at distinct bit widths, in conjunction with two explainability methods, counterfactual examples and natural language explanations, as well as two interpretability approaches, knowledge memorization analysis and latent multi-hop reasoning analysis. We complement our analysis with a thorough user study, evaluating selected explainability methods. Our findings reveal that, depending on the configuration, quantization can significantly impact model explainability and interpretability. Notably, the direction of this effect is not consistent, as it strongly depends on (1) the quantization method, (2) the explainability or interpretability approach, and (3) the evaluation protocol. In some settings, human evaluation shows that quantization degrades explainability, while in others, it even leads to improvements. Our work serves as a cautionary tale, demonstrating that quantization can unpredictably affect model transparency. This insight has important implications for deploying LLMs in applications where transparency is a critical requirement.

Qianli Wang, Nils Feldhus, Simon Ostermann et al.

Counterfactual examples are widely used in natural language processing (NLP) as valuable data to improve models, and in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to understand model behavior. The automated generation of counterfactual examples remains a challenging task even for large language models (LLMs), despite their impressive performance on many tasks. In this paper, we first introduce ZeroCF, a faithful approach for leveraging important words derived from feature attribution methods to generate counterfactual examples in a zero-shot setting. Second, we present a new framework, FitCF, which further verifies aforementioned counterfactuals by label flip verification and then inserts them as demonstrations for few-shot prompting, outperforming two state-of-the-art baselines. Through ablation studies, we identify the importance of each of FitCF's core components in improving the quality of counterfactuals, as assessed through flip rate, perplexity, and similarity measures. Furthermore, we show the effectiveness of LIME and Integrated Gradients as backbone attribution methods for FitCF and find that the number of demonstrations has the largest effect on performance. Finally, we reveal a strong correlation between the faithfulness of feature attribution scores and the quality of generated counterfactuals, which we hope will serve as an important finding for future research in this direction.

Charlott Jakob, David Harbecke, Patrick Parschan et al.

Large Language Models are increasingly used in applications requiring objective assessment, which could be compromised by political bias. Many studies found preferences for left-leaning positions in LLMs, but downstream effects on tasks like fact-checking remain underexplored. In this study, we systematically investigate political bias through exchanging words with euphemisms or dysphemisms in German claims. We construct minimal pairs of factually equivalent claims that differ in political connotation, to assess the consistency of LLMs in classifying them as true or false. We evaluate six LLMs and find that, more than political leaning, the presence of judgmental words significantly influences truthfulness assessment. While a few models show tendencies of political bias, this is not mitigated by explicitly calling for objectivism in prompts. Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting.

Ariana Sahitaj, Premtim Sahitaj, Veronika Solopova et al.

Propaganda detection on social media remains challenging due to task complexity and limited high-quality labeled data. This paper introduces a novel framework that combines human expertise with Large Language Model (LLM) assistance to improve both annotation consistency and scalability. We propose a hierarchical taxonomy that organizes 14 fine-grained propaganda techniques into three broader categories, conduct a human annotation study on the HQP dataset that reveals low inter-annotator agreement for fine-grained labels, and implement an LLM-assisted pre-annotation pipeline that extracts propagandistic spans, generates concise explanations, and assigns local labels as well as a global label. A secondary human verification study shows significant improvements in both agreement and time-efficiency. Building on this, we fine-tune smaller language models (SLMs) to perform structured annotation. Instead of fine-tuning on human annotations, we train on high-quality LLM-generated data, allowing a large model to produce these annotations and a smaller model to learn to generate them via knowledge distillation. Our work contributes towards the development of scalable and robust propaganda detection systems, supporting the idea of transparent and accountable media ecosystems in line with SDG 16. The code is publicly available at our GitHub repository.

Luis Felipe Villa-Arenas, Ata Nizamoglu, Qianli Wang et al.

In this work, we introduce a methodology for alignment designed to enhance the ability of large language models (LLMs) to articulate their reasoning (self-explanation) even in the absence of annotated rationale explanations. Our alignment methodology comprises three key components: explanation quality assessment, self-instruction dataset generation, and model alignment. Additionally, we present a novel technique called Alignment with Anchor Preference Pairs, which improves the selection of preference pairs by categorizing model outputs into three groups: consistently correct, consistently incorrect, and variable. By applying tailored strategies to each category, we enhance the effectiveness of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Our experimental results demonstrate that this approach significantly improves explanation quality while maintaining accuracy compared to other fine-tuning strategies.

Ariana Sahitaj, Jiaao Li, Pia Wenzel Neves et al.

This notebook reports the XplaiNLP submission to the CheckThat! 2025 shared task on multilingual subjectivity detection. We evaluate two approaches: (1) supervised fine-tuning of transformer encoders, EuroBERT, XLM-RoBERTa, and German-BERT, on monolingual and machine-translated training data; and (2) zero-shot prompting using two LLMs: o3-mini for Annotation (rule-based labelling) and gpt-4.1-mini for DoubleDown (contrastive rewriting) and Perspective (comparative reasoning). The Annotation Approach achieves 1st place in the Italian monolingual subtask with an F_1 score of 0.8104, outperforming the baseline of 0.6941. In the Romanian zero-shot setting, the fine-tuned XLM-RoBERTa model obtains an F_1 score of 0.7917, ranking 3rd and exceeding the baseline of 0.6461. The same model also performs reliably in the multilingual task and improves over the baseline in Greek. For German, a German-BERT model fine-tuned on translated training data from typologically related languages yields competitive performance over the baseline. In contrast, performance in the Ukrainian and Polish zero-shot settings falls slightly below the respective baselines, reflecting the challenge of generalization in low-resource cross-lingual scenarios.

Qianli Wang, Tatiana Anikina, Nils Feldhus et al.

Conversational explainable artificial intelligence (ConvXAI) systems based on large language models (LLMs) have garnered considerable attention for their ability to enhance user comprehension through dialogue-based explanations. Current ConvXAI systems often are based on intent recognition to accurately identify the user's desired intention and map it to an explainability method. While such methods offer great precision and reliability in discerning users' underlying intentions for English, a significant challenge in the scarcity of training data persists, which impedes multilingual generalization. Besides, the support for free-form custom inputs, which are user-defined data distinct from pre-configured dataset instances, remains largely limited. To bridge these gaps, we first introduce MultiCoXQL, a multilingual extension of the CoXQL dataset spanning five typologically diverse languages, including one low-resource language. Subsequently, we propose a new parsing approach aimed at enhancing multilingual parsing performance, and evaluate three LLMs on MultiCoXQL using various parsing strategies. Furthermore, we present Compass, a new multilingual dataset designed for custom input extraction in ConvXAI systems, encompassing 11 intents across the same five languages as MultiCoXQL. We conduct monolingual, cross-lingual, and multilingual evaluations on Compass, employing three LLMs of varying sizes alongside BERT-type models.

Qianli Wang, Van Bach Nguyen, Nils Feldhus et al.

Counterfactual examples are widely employed to enhance the performance and robustness of large language models (LLMs) through counterfactual data augmentation (CDA). However, the selection of the judge model used to evaluate label flipping, the primary metric for assessing the validity of generated counterfactuals for CDA, yields inconsistent results. To decipher this, we define four types of relationships between the counterfactual generator and judge models: being the same model, belonging to the same model family, being independent models, and having an distillation relationship. Through extensive experiments involving two state-of-the-art LLM-based methods, three datasets, four generator models, and 15 judge models, complemented by a user study (n = 90), we demonstrate that judge models with an independent, non-fine-tuned relationship to the generator model provide the most reliable label flipping evaluations. Relationships between the generator and judge models, which are closely aligned with the user study for CDA, result in better model performance and robustness. Nevertheless, we find that the gap between the most effective judge models and the results obtained from the user study remains considerably large. This suggests that a fully automated pipeline for CDA may be inadequate and requires human intervention.

Salar Mohtaj, Vera Schmitt, Sebastian Möller

The detection of hate speech online has become an important task, as offensive language such as hurtful, obscene and insulting content can harm marginalized people or groups. This paper presents TU Berlin team experiments and results on the task 1A and 1B of the shared task on hate speech and offensive content identification in Indo-European languages 2021. The success of different Natural Language Processing models is evaluated for the respective subtasks throughout the competition. We tested different models based on recurrent neural networks in word and character levels and transfer learning approaches based on Bert on the provided dataset by the competition. Among the tested models that have been used for the experiments, the transfer learning-based models achieved the best results in both subtasks.