Paolo Gajo

Paolo Gajo, Domenic Rosati, Hassan Sajjad et al.

Relation extraction represents a fundamental component in the process of creating knowledge graphs, among other applications. Large language models (LLMs) have been adopted as a promising tool for relation extraction, both in supervised and in-context learning settings. However, in this work we show that their performance still lags behind much smaller architectures when the linguistic graph underlying a text has great complexity. To demonstrate this, we evaluate four LLMs against a graph-based parser on six relation extraction datasets with sentence graphs of varying sizes and complexities. Our results show that the graph-based parser increasingly outperforms the LLMs, as the number of relations in the input documents increases. This makes the much lighter graph-based parser a superior choice in the presence of complex linguistic graphs.

Katerina Korre, John Pavlopoulos, Paolo Gajo et al.

The issue of hate speech extends beyond the confines of the online realm. It is a problem with real-life repercussions, prompting most nations to formulate legal frameworks that classify hate speech as a punishable offence. These legal frameworks differ from one country to another, contributing to the big chaos that online platforms have to face when addressing reported instances of hate speech. With the definitions of hate speech falling short in introducing a robust framework, we turn our gaze onto hate speech laws. We consult the opinion of legal experts on a hate speech dataset and we experiment by employing various approaches such as pretrained models both on hate speech and legal data, as well as exploiting two large language models (Qwen2-7B-Instruct and Meta-Llama-3-70B). Due to the time-consuming nature of data acquisition for prosecutable hate speech, we use pseudo-labeling to improve our pretrained models. This study highlights the importance of amplifying research on prosecutable hate speech and provides insights into effective strategies for combating hate speech within the parameters of legal frameworks. Our findings show that legal knowledge in the form of annotations can be useful when classifying prosecutable hate speech, yet more focus should be paid on the differences between the laws.