Wiem Ben Rim

Haris Widjaja, Kiril Gashteovski, Wiem Ben Rim et al.

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) store information in the form of (head, predicate, tail)-triples. To augment KGs with new knowledge, researchers proposed models for KG Completion (KGC) tasks such as link prediction; i.e., answering (h; p; ?) or (?; p; t) queries. Such models are usually evaluated with averaged metrics on a held-out test set. While useful for tracking progress, averaged single-score metrics cannot reveal what exactly a model has learned -- or failed to learn. To address this issue, we propose KGxBoard: an interactive framework for performing fine-grained evaluation on meaningful subsets of the data, each of which tests individual and interpretable capabilities of a KGC model. In our experiments, we highlight the findings that we discovered with the use of KGxBoard, which would have been impossible to detect with standard averaged single-score metrics.

Sascha Saralajew, Ammar Shaker, Zhao Xu et al.

With the rise of AI systems in real-world applications comes the need for reliable and trustworthy AI. An essential aspect of this are explainable AI systems. However, there is no agreed standard on how explainable AI systems should be assessed. Inspired by the Turing test, we introduce a human-centric assessment framework where a leading domain expert accepts or rejects the solutions of an AI system and another domain expert. By comparing the acceptance rates of provided solutions, we can assess how the AI system performs compared to the domain expert, and whether the AI system's explanations (if provided) are human-understandable. This setup -- comparable to the Turing test -- can serve as a framework for a wide range of human-centric AI system assessments. We demonstrate this by presenting two instantiations: (1) an assessment that measures the classification accuracy of a system with the option to incorporate label uncertainties; (2) an assessment where the usefulness of provided explanations is determined in a human-centric manner.

Chia-Chien Hung, Wiem Ben Rim, Lindsay Frost et al.

High-risk domains pose unique challenges that require language models to provide accurate and safe responses. Despite the great success of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and its variants, their performance in high-risk domains remains unclear. Our study delves into an in-depth analysis of the performance of instruction-tuned LLMs, focusing on factual accuracy and safety adherence. To comprehensively assess the capabilities of LLMs, we conduct experiments on six NLP datasets including question answering and summarization tasks within two high-risk domains: legal and medical. Further qualitative analysis highlights the existing limitations inherent in current LLMs when evaluating in high-risk domains. This underscores the essential nature of not only improving LLM capabilities but also prioritizing the refinement of domain-specific metrics, and embracing a more human-centric approach to enhance safety and factual reliability. Our findings advance the field toward the concerns of properly evaluating LLMs in high-risk domains, aiming to steer the adaptability of LLMs in fulfilling societal obligations and aligning with forthcoming regulations, such as the EU AI Act.

Figarri Keisha, Prince Singh, Pallavi et al.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has transformed how we approach text generation tasks by grounding Large Language Model (LLM) outputs in retrieved knowledge. This capability is especially critical in the legal domain. In this work, we introduce a novel end-to-end RAG pipeline that improves upon previous baselines using three targeted enhancements: (i) a context-aware query translator that disentangles document references from natural-language questions and adapts retrieval depth and response style based on expertise and specificity, (ii) open-source retrieval strategies using SBERT and GTE embeddings that achieve substantial performance gains while remaining cost-efficient, and (iii) a comprehensive evaluation and generation framework that combines RAGAS, BERTScore-F1, and ROUGE-Recall to assess semantic alignment and faithfulness across models and prompt designs. Our results show that carefully designed open-source pipelines can rival proprietary approaches in retrieval quality, while a custom legal-grounded prompt consistently produces more faithful and contextually relevant answers than baseline prompting. Taken together, these contributions demonstrate the potential of task-aware, component-level tuning to deliver legally grounded, reproducible, and cost-effective RAG systems for legal research assistance.

Makoto Takamoto, Daniel Oñoro-Rubio, Wiem Ben Rim et al.

Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models encode the structural information of knowledge graphs to predicting new links. Effective training of these models requires distinguishing between positive and negative samples with high precision. Although prior research has shown that improving the quality of negative samples can significantly enhance model accuracy, identifying high-quality negative samples remains a challenging problem. This paper theoretically investigates the condition under which negative samples lead to optimal KG embedding and identifies a sufficient condition for an effective negative sample distribution. Based on this theoretical foundation, we propose \textbf{E}mbedding \textbf{MU}tation (\textsc{EMU}), a novel framework that \emph{generates} negative samples satisfying this condition, in contrast to conventional methods that focus on \emph{identifying} challenging negative samples within the training data. Importantly, the simplicity of \textsc{EMU} ensures seamless integration with existing KGE models and negative sampling methods. To evaluate its efficacy, we conducted comprehensive experiments across multiple datasets. The results consistently demonstrate significant improvements in link prediction performance across various KGE models and negative sampling methods. Notably, \textsc{EMU} enables performance improvements comparable to those achieved by models with embedding dimension five times larger. An implementation of the method and experiments are available at https://github.com/nec-research/EMU-KG.

Gorjan Radevski, Kiril Gashteovski, Shahbaz Syed et al.

Question Answering (QA) accounts for a significant portion of LLM usage "in the wild". However, LLMs sometimes produce false or misleading responses, also known as "hallucinations". Therefore, grounding the generated answers in contextually provided information -- i.e., providing evidence for the generated text -- is paramount for LLMs' trustworthiness. Providing this information is the task of context attribution. In this paper, we systematically study LLM-based approaches for this task, namely we investigate (i) zero-shot inference, (ii) LLM ensembling, and (iii) fine-tuning of small LMs on synthetic data generated by larger LLMs. Our key contribution is SynQA: a novel generative strategy for synthesizing context attribution data. Given selected context sentences, an LLM generates QA pairs that are supported by these sentences. This leverages LLMs' natural strengths in text generation while ensuring clear attribution paths in the synthetic training data. We show that the attribution data synthesized via SynQA is highly effective for fine-tuning small LMs for context attribution in different QA tasks and domains. Finally, with a user study, we validate the usefulness of small LMs (fine-tuned on synthetic data from SynQA) in context attribution for QA.