Javier Parapar

Paloma Piot, Javier Parapar

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

Anxo Pérez, Neha Warikoo, Kexin Wang et al.

Depressive disorders constitute a severe public health issue worldwide. However, public health systems have limited capacity for case detection and diagnosis. In this regard, the widespread use of social media has opened up a way to access public information on a large scale. Computational methods can serve as support tools for rapid screening by exploiting this user-generated social media content. This paper presents an efficient semantic pipeline to study depression severity in individuals based on their social media writings. We select test user sentences for producing semantic rankings over an index of representative training sentences corresponding to depressive symptoms and severity levels. Then, we use the sentences from those results as evidence for predicting users' symptom severity. For that, we explore different aggregation methods to answer one of four Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) options per symptom. We evaluate our methods on two Reddit-based benchmarks, achieving 30\% improvement over state of the art in terms of measuring depression severity.

Anxo Pérez, Marcos Fernández-Pichel, Javier Parapar et al.

Computational methods for depression detection aim to mine traces of depression from online publications posted by Internet users. However, solutions trained on existing collections exhibit limited generalisation and interpretability. To tackle these issues, recent studies have shown that identifying depressive symptoms can lead to more robust models. The eRisk initiative fosters research on this area and has recently proposed a new ranking task focused on developing search methods to find sentences related to depressive symptoms. This search challenge relies on the symptoms specified by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), a questionnaire widely used in clinical practice. Based on the participant systems' results, we present the DepreSym dataset, consisting of 21580 sentences annotated according to their relevance to the 21 BDI-II symptoms. The labelled sentences come from a pool of diverse ranking methods, and the final dataset serves as a valuable resource for advancing the development of models that incorporate depressive markers such as clinical symptoms. Due to the complex nature of this relevance annotation, we designed a robust assessment methodology carried out by three expert assessors (including an expert psychologist). Additionally, we explore here the feasibility of employing recent Large Language Models (ChatGPT and GPT4) as potential assessors in this complex task. We undertake a comprehensive examination of their performance, determine their main limitations and analyze their role as a complement or replacement for human annotators.

Eliseo Bao, Anxo Pérez, Javier Parapar

The recent proliferation of Large Conversation Language Models has highlighted the economic significance of widespread access to this type of AI technologies in the current information age. Nevertheless, prevailing models have primarily been trained on corpora consisting of documents written in popular languages. The dearth of such cutting-edge tools for low-resource languages further exacerbates their underrepresentation in the current economic landscape, thereby impacting their native speakers. This paper introduces two novel resources designed to enhance Natural Language Processing (NLP) for the Galician language. We present a Galician adaptation of the Alpaca dataset, comprising 52,000 instructions and demonstrations. This dataset proves invaluable for enhancing language models by fine-tuning them to more accurately adhere to provided instructions. Additionally, as a demonstration of the dataset utility, we fine-tuned LLaMA-7B to comprehend and respond in Galician, a language not originally supported by the model, by following the Alpaca format. This work contributes to the research on multilingual models tailored for low-resource settings, a crucial endeavor in ensuring the inclusion of all linguistic communities in the development of Large Language Models. Another noteworthy aspect of this research is the exploration of how knowledge of a closely related language, in this case, Portuguese, can assist in generating coherent text when training resources are scarce. Both the Galician Alpaca dataset and Cabuxa-7B are publicly accessible on our Huggingface Hub, and we have made the source code available to facilitate replication of this experiment and encourage further advancements for underrepresented languages.

Jorge Gabín, Anxo Perez, Javier Parapar

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems rely on retrieved documents being concatenated into a model's input context, making both document ordering and context size critical yet controversial design choices. Prior work reports position-based effects such as lost in the middle and related long-context phenomena. However, empirical findings remain inconsistent and hard to reproduce across models, datasets, and evaluation protocols. In this paper, we present a systematic reproducibility study that revisits these claims and examines how they evolve with contemporary LLMs under a controlled evaluation framework. We first show that topic sampling is a major source of variance: small topic sets can mask or exaggerate ordering effects. Based on repeated subset sampling across multiple topic budgets, we provide a practical calibration procedure that identifies topic counts yielding stable trends at feasible cost. Using these fixed topic sets, we then reproduce and extend results on position sensitivity, re-evaluating lost in the middle and positional biases in modern LLMs. Then, we also study a more realistic RAG scenario in which relevance is mediated by a retriever rather than oracle access to ground-truth documents. In this setting, we re-examine a recent industry study and identify discrepancies to evaluation choices such as limited topic coverage and reliance on LLM-based judges. Finally, we conduct an analysis of how retrieval order and context size affect downstream LLM performance under imperfect retrieval. Our results demonstrate that both factors interact strongly with retrieval quality and model choice, and that conclusions drawn from idealised setups do not always transfer to real-world RAG pipelines. We release all code and configurations to support reproducibility and future work on robust RAG evaluation.

Jorge Gabín, M. Eduardo Ares, Javier Parapar

Nowadays, search engine users commonly rely on query suggestions to improve their initial inputs. Current systems are very good at recommending lexical adaptations or spelling corrections to users' queries. However, they often struggle to suggest semantically related keywords given a user's query. The construction of a detailed query is crucial in some tasks, such as legal retrieval or academic search. In these scenarios, keyword suggestion methods are critical to guide the user during the query formulation. This paper proposes two novel models for the keyword suggestion task trained on scientific literature. Our techniques adapt the architecture of Word2Vec and FastText to generate keyword embeddings by leveraging documents' keyword co-occurrence. Along with these models, we also present a specially tailored negative sampling approach that exploits how keywords appear in academic publications. We devise a ranking-based evaluation methodology following both known-item and ad-hoc search scenarios. Finally, we evaluate our proposals against the state-of-the-art word and sentence embedding models showing considerable improvements over the baselines for the tasks.

David Otero, Javier Parapar

High-quality relevance judgements over large query sets are essential for evaluating Information Retrieval (IR) systems, yet manual annotation remains costly and time-consuming. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown promise as automatic relevance assessors, but their reliability is still limited. Most existing approaches rely on zero-shot prompting or in-context learning (ICL) with a small number of labelled examples. However, standard ICL treats examples as independent instances and fails to explicitly capture the underlying relevance criteria of a topic, restricting its ability to generalise to unseen query-document pairs. To address this limitation, we introduce Relevance Context Learning (RCL), a novel framework that leverages human relevance judgements to explicitly model topic-specific relevance criteria. Rather than directly using labelled examples for in-context prediction, RCL first prompts an LLM (Instructor LLM) to analyse sets of judged query-document pairs and generate explicit narratives that describe what constitutes relevance for a given topic. These relevance narratives are then used as structured prompts to guide a second LLM (Assessor LLM) in producing relevance judgements. To evaluate RCL in a realistic data collection setting, we propose a hybrid pooling strategy in which a shallow depth-k pool from participating systems is judged by human assessors, while the remaining documents are labelled by LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate that RCL substantially outperforms zero-shot prompting and consistently improves over standard ICL. Overall, our findings indicate that transforming relevance examples into explicit, context-aware relevance narratives is a more effective way of exploiting human judgements for LLM-based IR dataset construction.

Eliseo Bao, Anxo Pérez, Javier Parapar

Users of social platforms often perceive these sites as supportive spaces to post about their mental health issues. Those conversations contain important traces about individuals' health risks. Recently, researchers have exploited this online information to construct mental health detection models, which aim to identify users at risk on platforms like Twitter, Reddit or Facebook. Most of these models are centred on achieving good classification results, ignoring the explainability and interpretability of the decisions. Recent research has pointed out the importance of using clinical markers, such as the use of symptoms, to improve trust in the computational models by health professionals. In this paper, we propose using transformer-based architectures to detect and explain the appearance of depressive symptom markers in the users' writings. We present two approaches: i) train a model to classify, and another one to explain the classifier's decision separately and ii) unify the two tasks simultaneously using a single model. Additionally, for this latter manner, we also investigated the performance of recent conversational LLMs when using in-context learning. Our natural language explanations enable clinicians to interpret the models' decisions based on validated symptoms, enhancing trust in the automated process. We evaluate our approach using recent symptom-based datasets, employing both offline and expert-in-the-loop metrics to assess the quality of the explanations generated by our models. The experimental results show that it is possible to achieve good classification results while generating interpretable symptom-based explanations.

Paloma Piot, Javier Parapar

Automatic detection of hate and abusive language is essential to combat its online spread. Moreover, recognising and explaining hate speech serves to educate people about its negative effects. However, most current detection models operate as black boxes, lacking interpretability and explainability. In this context, Large Language Models (LLMs) have proven effective for hate speech detection and to promote interpretability. Nevertheless, they are computationally costly to run. In this work, we propose distilling big language models by using Chain-of-Thought to extract explanations that support the hate speech classification task. Having small language models for these tasks will contribute to their use in operational settings. In this paper, we demonstrate that distilled models deliver explanations of the same quality as larger models while surpassing them in classification performance. This dual capability, classifying and explaining, advances hate speech detection making it more affordable, understandable and actionable.

Eliseo Bao, Anxo Perez, Xi Wang et al.

Large Language Model (LLM) personas with explicit specifications of attributes, background, and behavioural tendencies are increasingly used to simulate human conversations for tasks such as user modeling, social reasoning, and behavioural analysis. Ensuring that persona-grounded simulations faithfully reflect human conversational behaviour is therefore critical. However, current evaluation practices largely rely on LLM-as-a-judge approaches, offering limited grounding in observable human behavior and producing opaque scalar scores. We address this gap by proposing Eval4Sim, an evaluation framework that measures how closely simulated conversations align with human conversational patterns across three complementary dimensions. Adherence captures how effectively persona backgrounds are implicitly encoded in generated utterances, assessed via dense retrieval with speaker-aware representations. Consistency evaluates whether a persona maintains a distinguishable identity across conversations, computed through authorship verification. Naturalness reflects whether conversations exhibit human-like flow rather than overly rigid or optimized structure, quantified through distributions derived from dialogue-focused Natural Language Inference. Unlike absolute or optimization-oriented metrics, Eval4Sim uses a human conversational corpus (i.e., PersonaChat) as a reference baseline and penalizes deviations in both directions, distinguishing insufficient persona encoding from over-optimized, unnatural behaviour. Although demonstrated on PersonaChat, the applicability of Eval4Sim extends to any conversational corpus containing speaker-level annotations.

Paloma Piot, David Otero, Patricia Martín-Rodilla et al.

Hate speech spreads widely online, harming individuals and communities, making automatic detection essential for large-scale moderation, yet detecting it remains difficult. Part of the challenge lies in subjectivity: what one person flags as hate speech, another may see as benign. Traditional annotation agreement metrics, such as Cohen's $κ$, oversimplify this disagreement, treating it as an error rather than meaningful diversity. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) promise scalable annotation, but prior studies demonstrate that they cannot fully replace human judgement, especially in subjective tasks. In this work, we reexamine LLM reliability using a subjectivity-aware framework, cross-Rater Reliability (xRR), revealing that even under fairer lens, LLMs still diverge from humans. Yet this limitation opens an opportunity: we find that LLM-generated annotations can reliably reflect performance trends across classification models, correlating with human evaluations. We test this by examining whether LLM-generated annotations preserve the relative ordering of model performance derived from human evaluation (i.e. whether models ranked as more reliable by human annotators preserve the same order when evaluated with LLM-generated labels). Our results show that, although LLMs differ from humans at the instance level, they reproduce similar ranking and classification patterns, suggesting their potential as proxy evaluators. While not a substitute for human annotators, they might serve as a scalable proxy for evaluation in subjective NLP tasks.

Michele Joshua Maggini, Paloma Piot, Anxo Pérez et al.

Detecting hyperpartisan narratives and Population Replacement Conspiracy Theories (PRCT) is essential to addressing the spread of misinformation. These complex narratives pose a significant threat, as hyperpartisanship drives political polarisation and institutional distrust, while PRCTs directly motivate real-world extremist violence, making their identification critical for social cohesion and public safety. However, existing resources are scarce, predominantly English-centric, and often analyse hyperpartisanship, stance, and rhetorical bias in isolation rather than as interrelated aspects of political discourse. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textsc{PartisanLens}, the first multilingual dataset of \num{1617} hyperpartisan news headlines in Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, annotated in multiple political discourse aspects. We first evaluate the classification performance of widely used Large Language Models (LLMs) on this dataset, establishing robust baselines for the classification of hyperpartisan and PRCT narratives. In addition, we assess the viability of using LLMs as automatic annotators for this task, analysing their ability to approximate human annotation. Results highlight both their potential and current limitations. Next, moving beyond standard judgments, we explore whether LLMs can emulate human annotation patterns by conditioning them on socio-economic and ideological profiles that simulate annotator perspectives. At last, we provide our resources and evaluation, \textsc{PartisanLens} supports future research on detecting partisan and conspiratorial narratives in European contexts.

Jorge Gabín, M. Eduardo Ares, Javier Parapar

News articles often reference numerous organizations, but traditional Named Entity Recognition (NER) treats all mentions equally, obscuring which entities genuinely drive the narrative. This limits downstream tasks that rely on understanding event salience, influence, or narrative focus. We introduce Protagonist Entity Recognition (PER), a task that identifies the organizations that anchor a news story and shape its main developments. To validate PER, we compare he predictions of Large Language Models (LLMs) against annotations from four expert annotators over a gold corpus, establishing both inter-annotator consistency and human-LLM agreement. Leveraging these findings, we use state-of-the-art LLMs to automatically label large-scale news collections through NER-guided prompting, generating scalable, high-quality supervision. We then evaluate whether other LLMs, given reduced context and without explicit candidate guidance, can still infer the correct protagonists. Our results demonstrate that PER is a feasible and meaningful extension to narrative-centered information extraction, and that guided LLMs can approximate human judgments of narrative importance at scale.

Eliseo Bao, Anxo Perez, David Otero et al.

Depression places substantial pressure on mental health services, and many people describe their experiences outside clinical settings in high-volume user-generated text (e.g., online forums and social media). Automatically identifying clinical symptom evidence in such text can therefore complement limited clinical capacity and scale to large populations. We address this need through sentence-level classification of 21 depression symptoms from the BDI-II questionnaire, using BDI-Sen, a dataset annotated for symptom relevance. This task is fine-grained and highly imbalanced, and we find that common LLM approaches (zero-shot, in-context learning, and fine-tuning) struggle to apply consistent relevance criteria for most symptoms. We propose Symptom Induction (SI), a novel approach which compresses labeled examples into short, interpretable guidelines that specify what counts as evidence for each symptom and uses these guidelines to condition classification. Across four LLM families and eight models, SI achieves the best overall weighted F1 on BDI-Sen, with especially large gains for infrequent symptoms. Cross-domain evaluation on an external dataset further shows that induced guidelines generalize across other diseases shared symptomatology (bipolar and eating disorders).

Paloma Piot, Patricia Martín-Rodilla, Javier Parapar

Hate speech represents a pervasive and detrimental form of online discourse, often manifested through an array of slurs, from hateful tweets to defamatory posts. As such speech proliferates, it connects people globally and poses significant social, psychological, and occasionally physical threats to targeted individuals and communities. Current computational linguistic approaches for tackling this phenomenon rely on labelled social media datasets for training. For unifying efforts, our study advances in the critical need for a comprehensive meta-collection, advocating for an extensive dataset to help counteract this problem effectively. We scrutinized over 60 datasets, selectively integrating those pertinent into MetaHate. This paper offers a detailed examination of existing collections, highlighting their strengths and limitations. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the existing datasets, paving the way for training more robust and adaptable models. These enhanced models are essential for effectively combating the dynamic and complex nature of hate speech in the digital realm.

Paloma Piot, José Ramom Pichel Campos, Javier Parapar

Hate speech poses a serious threat to social cohesion and individual well-being, particularly on social media, where it spreads rapidly. While research on hate speech detection has progressed, it remains largely focused on English, resulting in limited resources and benchmarks for low-resource languages. Moreover, many of these languages have multiple linguistic varieties, a factor often overlooked in current approaches. At the same time, large language models require substantial amounts of data to perform reliably, a requirement that low-resource languages often cannot meet. In this work, we address these gaps by compiling a meta-collection of hate speech datasets for European Spanish, standardised with unified labels and metadata. This collection is based on a systematic analysis and integration of existing resources, aiming to bridge the data gap and support more consistent and scalable hate speech detection. We extended this collection by translating it into European Portuguese and into a Galician standard that is more convergent with Spanish and another Galician variant that is more convergent with Portuguese, creating aligned multilingual corpora. Using these resources, we establish new benchmarks for hate speech detection in Iberian languages. We evaluate state-of-the-art large language models in zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning settings, providing baseline results for future research. Moreover, we perform a cross-lingual analysis with our target languages. Our findings underscore the importance of multilingual and variety-aware approaches in hate speech detection and offer a foundation for improved benchmarking in underrepresented European languages.

Paloma Piot, Diego Sánchez, Javier Parapar

Online harms are a growing problem in digital spaces, putting user safety at risk and reducing trust in social media platforms. One of the most persistent forms of harm is hate speech. To address this, we need tools that combine the speed and scale of automated systems with the judgment and insight of human moderators. These tools should not only find harmful content but also explain their decisions clearly, helping to build trust and understanding. In this paper, we present WATCHED, a chatbot designed to support content moderators in tackling hate speech. The chatbot is built as an Artificial Intelligence Agent system that uses Large Language Models along with several specialised tools. It compares new posts with real examples of hate speech and neutral content, uses a BERT-based classifier to help flag harmful messages, looks up slang and informal language using sources like Urban Dictionary, generates chain-of-thought reasoning, and checks platform guidelines to explain and support its decisions. This combination allows the chatbot not only to detect hate speech but to explain why content is considered harmful, grounded in both precedent and policy. Experimental results show that our proposed method surpasses existing state-of-the-art methods, reaching a macro F1 score of 0.91. Designed for moderators, safety teams, and researchers, the tool helps reduce online harms by supporting collaboration between AI and human oversight.

Xi Wang, Anxo Perez, Javier Parapar et al.

The increasing demand for mental health services has outpaced the availability of real training data to develop clinical professionals, leading to limited support for the diagnosis of depression. This shortage has motivated the development of simulated or virtual patients to assist in training and evaluation, but existing approaches often fail to generate clinically valid, natural, and diverse symptom presentations. In this work, we embrace the recent advanced language models as the backbone and propose a novel clinician-in-the-loop patient simulation pipeline, TalkDep, with access to diversified patient profiles to develop simulated patients. By conditioning the model on psychiatric diagnostic criteria, symptom severity scales, and contextual factors, our goal is to create authentic patient responses that can better support diagnostic model training and evaluation. We verify the reliability of these simulated patients with thorough assessments conducted by clinical professionals. The availability of validated simulated patients offers a scalable and adaptable resource for improving the robustness and generalisability of automatic depression diagnosis systems.

Eliseo Bao, Anxo Pérez, Javier Parapar

Depression is a pervasive mental health condition that affects hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide, yet many cases remain undiagnosed due to barriers in traditional clinical access and pervasive stigma. Social media platforms, and Reddit in particular, offer rich, user-generated narratives that can reveal early signs of depressive symptomatology. However, existing computational approaches often label entire posts simply as depressed or not depressed, without linking language to specific criteria from the DSM-5, the standard clinical framework for diagnosing depression. This limits both clinical relevance and interpretability. To address this gap, we introduce ReDSM5, a novel Reddit corpus comprising 1484 long-form posts, each exhaustively annotated at the sentence level by a licensed psychologist for the nine DSM-5 depression symptoms. For each label, the annotator also provides a concise clinical rationale grounded in DSM-5 methodology. We conduct an exploratory analysis of the collection, examining lexical, syntactic, and emotional patterns that characterize symptom expression in social media narratives. Compared to prior resources, ReDSM5 uniquely combines symptom-specific supervision with expert explanations, facilitating the development of models that not only detect depression but also generate human-interpretable reasoning. We establish baseline benchmarks for both multi-label symptom classification and explanation generation, providing reference results for future research on detection and interpretability.

Paloma Piot, Patricia Martín-Rodilla, Javier Parapar

Commercial Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently incorporated memory features to deliver personalised responses. This memory retains details such as user demographics and individual characteristics, allowing LLMs to adjust their behaviour based on personal information. However, the impact of integrating personalised information into the context has not been thoroughly assessed, leading to questions about its influence on LLM behaviour. Personalisation can be challenging, particularly with sensitive topics. In this paper, we examine various state-of-the-art LLMs to understand their behaviour in different personalisation scenarios, specifically focusing on hate speech. We prompt the models to assume country-specific personas and use different languages for hate speech detection. Our findings reveal that context personalisation significantly influences LLMs' responses in this sensitive area. To mitigate these unwanted biases, we fine-tune the LLMs by penalising inconsistent hate speech classifications made with and without country or language-specific context. The refined models demonstrate improved performance in both personalised contexts and when no context is provided.

Javier Parapar, David E. Losada, Manuel A. Presedo-Quindimil et al.

Statistical significance tests can provide evidence that the observed difference in performance between two methods is not due to chance. In Information Retrieval, some studies have examined the validity and suitability of such tests for comparing search systems. We argue here that current methods for assessing the reliability of statistical tests suffer from some methodological weaknesses, and we propose a novel way to study significance tests for retrieval evaluation. Using Score Distributions, we model the output of multiple search systems, produce simulated search results from such models, and compare them using various significance tests. A key strength of this approach is that we assess statistical tests under perfect knowledge about the truth or falseness of the null hypothesis. This new method for studying the power of significance tests in Information Retrieval evaluation is formal and innovative. Following this type of analysis, we found that both the sign test and Wilcoxon signed test have more power than the permutation test and the t-test. The sign test and Wilcoxon signed test also have a good behavior in terms of type I errors. The bootstrap test shows few type I errors, but it has less power than the other methods tested.