Federico Ruggeri

Mahmud Elahi Akhter, Federico Ruggeri, Iman Munire Bilal et al.

Structured claim decomposition is often proposed as a solution for verifying complex, multi-faceted claims, yet empirical results have been inconsistent. We argue that these inconsistencies stem from two overlooked bottlenecks: evidence alignment and sub-claim error profiles. To better understand these factors, we introduce a new dataset of real-world complex claims, featuring temporally bounded evidence and human-annotated sub-claim evidence spans. We evaluate decomposition under two evidence alignment setups: Sub-claim Aligned Evidence (SAE) and Repeated Claim-level Evidence (SRE). Our results reveal that decomposition brings significant performance improvement only when evidence is granular and strictly aligned. By contrast, standard setups that rely on repeated claim-level evidence (SRE) fail to improve and often degrade performance as shown across different datasets and domains (PHEMEPlus, MMM-Fact, COVID-Fact). Furthermore, we demonstrate that in the presence of noisy sub-claim labels, the nature of the error ends up determining downstream robustness. We find that conservative "abstention" significantly reduces error propagation compared to aggressive but incorrect predictions. These findings suggest that future claim decomposition frameworks must prioritize precise evidence synthesis and calibrate the label bias of sub-claim verification models.

Arianna Muti, Federico Ruggeri, Khalid Al-Khatib et al.

We propose misogyny detection as an Argumentative Reasoning task and we investigate the capacity of large language models (LLMs) to understand the implicit reasoning used to convey misogyny in both Italian and English. The central aim is to generate the missing reasoning link between a message and the implied meanings encoding the misogyny. Our study uses argumentation theory as a foundation to form a collection of prompts in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. These prompts integrate different techniques, including chain-of-thought reasoning and augmented knowledge. Our findings show that LLMs fall short on reasoning capabilities about misogynistic comments and that they mostly rely on their implicit knowledge derived from internalized common stereotypes about women to generate implied assumptions, rather than on inductive reasoning.

Katerina Korre, Arianna Muti, Federico Ruggeri et al.

Hate speech relies heavily on cultural influences, leading to varying individual interpretations. For that reason, we propose a Semantic Componential Analysis (SCA) framework for a cross-cultural and cross-domain analysis of hate speech definitions. We create the first dataset of hate speech definitions encompassing 493 definitions from more than 100 cultures, drawn from five key domains: online dictionaries, academic research, Wikipedia, legal texts, and online platforms. By decomposing these definitions into semantic components, our analysis reveals significant variation across definitions, yet many domains borrow definitions from one another without taking into account the target culture. We conduct zero-shot model experiments using our proposed dataset, employing three popular open-sourced LLMs to understand the impact of different definitions on hate speech detection. Our findings indicate that LLMs are sensitive to definitions: responses for hate speech detection change according to the complexity of definitions used in the prompt.

Firoj Alam, Julia Maria Struß, Tanmoy Chakraborty et al.

The CheckThat! lab aims to advance the development of innovative technologies designed to identify and counteract online disinformation and manipulation efforts across various languages and platforms. The first five editions focused on key tasks in the information verification pipeline, including check-worthiness, evidence retrieval and pairing, and verification. Since the 2023 edition, the lab has expanded its scope to address auxiliary tasks that support research and decision-making in verification. In the 2025 edition, the lab revisits core verification tasks while also considering auxiliary challenges. Task 1 focuses on the identification of subjectivity (a follow-up from CheckThat! 2024), Task 2 addresses claim normalization, Task 3 targets fact-checking numerical claims, and Task 4 explores scientific web discourse processing. These tasks present challenging classification and retrieval problems at both the document and span levels, including multilingual settings.

Arianna Muti, Federico Ruggeri, Cagri Toraman et al.

Misogyny is often expressed through figurative language. Some neutral words can assume a negative connotation when functioning as pejorative epithets. Disambiguating the meaning of such terms might help the detection of misogyny. In order to address such task, we present PejorativITy, a novel corpus of 1,200 manually annotated Italian tweets for pejorative language at the word level and misogyny at the sentence level. We evaluate the impact of injecting information about disambiguated words into a model targeting misogyny detection. In particular, we explore two different approaches for injection: concatenation of pejorative information and substitution of ambiguous words with univocal terms. Our experimental results, both on our corpus and on two popular benchmarks on Italian tweets, show that both approaches lead to a major classification improvement, indicating that word sense disambiguation is a promising preliminary step for misogyny detection. Furthermore, we investigate LLMs' understanding of pejorative epithets by means of contextual word embeddings analysis and prompting.

John Dougrez-Lewis, Mahmud Elahi Akhter, Federico Ruggeri et al.

Although LLMs have shown great performance on Mathematics and Coding related reasoning tasks, the reasoning capabilities of LLMs regarding other forms of reasoning are still an open problem. Here, we examine the issue of reasoning from the perspective of claim verification. We propose a framework designed to break down any claim paired with evidence into atomic reasoning types that are necessary for verification. We use this framework to create RECV, the first claim verification benchmark, incorporating real-world claims, to assess the deductive and abductive reasoning capabilities of LLMs. The benchmark comprises of three datasets, covering reasoning problems of increasing complexity. We evaluate three state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs under multiple prompt settings. Our results show that while LLMs can address deductive reasoning problems, they consistently fail in cases of abductive reasoning. Moreover, we observe that enhancing LLMs with rationale generation is not always beneficial. Nonetheless, we find that generated rationales are semantically similar to those provided by humans, especially in deductive reasoning cases.

Federico Ruggeri, Gaetano Signorelli

A popular end-to-end architecture for selective rationalization is the select-then-predict pipeline, comprising a generator to extract highlights fed to a predictor. Such a cooperative system suffers from suboptimal equilibrium minima due to the dominance of one of the two modules, a phenomenon known as interlocking. While several contributions aimed at addressing interlocking, they only mitigate its effect, often by introducing feature-based heuristics, sampling, and ad-hoc regularizations. We present GenSPP, the first interlocking-free architecture for selective rationalization that does not require any learning overhead, as the above-mentioned. GenSPP avoids interlocking by performing disjoint training of the generator and predictor via genetic global search. Experiments on a synthetic and a real-world benchmark show that our model outperforms several state-of-the-art competitors.

Federico Ruggeri, Eleonora Misino, Arianna Muti et al.

We introduce the Guideline-Centered Annotation Methodology (GCAM), a novel data annotation methodology designed to report the annotation guidelines associated with each data sample. Our approach addresses three key limitations of the standard prescriptive annotation methodology by reducing the information loss during annotation and ensuring adherence to guidelines. Furthermore, GCAM enables the efficient reuse of annotated data across multiple tasks. We evaluate GCAM in two ways: (i) through a human annotation study and (ii) an experimental evaluation with several machine learning models. Our results highlight the advantages of GCAM from multiple perspectives, demonstrating its potential to improve annotation quality and error analysis.

Eleonora Mancini, Ana Tanevska, Andrea Galassi et al.

Current research in machine learning and artificial intelligence is largely centered on modeling and performance evaluation, less so on data collection. However, recent research demonstrated that limitations and biases in data may negatively impact trustworthiness and reliability. These aspects are particularly impactful on sensitive domains such as mental health and neurological disorders, where speech data are used to develop AI applications for patients and healthcare providers. In this paper, we chart the landscape of available speech datasets for this domain, to highlight possible pitfalls and opportunities for improvement and promote fairness and diversity. We present a comprehensive list of desiderata for building speech datasets for mental health and neurological disorders and distill it into an actionable checklist focused on ethical concerns to foster more responsible research.

Francesco Antici, Andrea Galassi, Federico Ruggeri et al.

We develop novel annotation guidelines for sentence-level subjectivity detection, which are not limited to language-specific cues. We use our guidelines to collect NewsSD-ENG, a corpus of 638 objective and 411 subjective sentences extracted from English news articles on controversial topics. Our corpus paves the way for subjectivity detection in English and across other languages without relying on language-specific tools, such as lexicons or machine translation. We evaluate state-of-the-art multilingual transformer-based models on the task in mono-, multi-, and cross-language settings. For this purpose, we re-annotate an existing Italian corpus. We observe that models trained in the multilingual setting achieve the best performance on the task.

Federico Ruggeri, Mohsen Mesgar, Iryna Gurevych

The applications of conversational agents for scientific disciplines (as expert domains) are understudied due to the lack of dialogue data to train such agents. While most data collection frameworks, such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, foster data collection for generic domains by connecting crowd workers and task designers, these frameworks are not much optimized for data collection in expert domains. Scientists are rarely present in these frameworks due to their limited time budget. Therefore, we introduce a novel framework to collect dialogues between scientists as domain experts on scientific papers. Our framework lets scientists present their scientific papers as groundings for dialogues and participate in dialogue they like its paper title. We use our framework to collect a novel argumentative dialogue dataset, ArgSciChat. It consists of 498 messages collected from 41 dialogues on 20 scientific papers. Alongside extensive analysis on ArgSciChat, we evaluate a recent conversational agent on our dataset. Experimental results show that this agent poorly performs on ArgSciChat, motivating further research on argumentative scientific agents. We release our framework and the dataset.

Federico Ruggeri, Marco Lippi, Paolo Torroni

Many NLP applications require models to be interpretable. However, many successful neural architectures, including transformers, still lack effective interpretation methods. A possible solution could rely on building explanations from domain knowledge, which is often available as plain, natural language text. We thus propose an extension to transformer models that makes use of external memories to store natural language explanations and use them to explain classification outputs. We conduct an experimental evaluation on two domains, legal text analysis and argument mining, to show that our approach can produce relevant explanations while retaining or even improving classification performance.

Federico Ruggeri, Marco Lippi, Paolo Torroni

We propose a novel architecture for Graph Neural Networks that is inspired by the idea behind Tree Kernels of measuring similarity between trees by taking into account their common substructures, named fragments. By imposing a series of regularization constraints to the learning problem, we exploit a pooling mechanism that incorporates such notion of fragments within the node soft assignment function that produces the embeddings. We present an extensive experimental evaluation on a collection of sentence classification tasks conducted on several argument mining corpora, showing that the proposed approach performs well with respect to state-of-the-art techniques.

Federico Ruggeri, Francesca Lagioia, Marco Lippi et al.

Recent work has demonstrated how data-driven AI methods can leverage consumer protection by supporting the automated analysis of legal documents. However, a shortcoming of data-driven approaches is poor explainability. We posit that in this domain useful explanations of classifier outcomes can be provided by resorting to legal rationales. We thus consider several configurations of memory-augmented neural networks where rationales are given a special role in the modeling of context knowledge. Our results show that rationales not only contribute to improve the classification accuracy, but are also able to offer meaningful, natural language explanations of otherwise opaque classifier outcomes.