Serena Villata

Iker García-Ferrero, Rodrigo Agerri, Aitziber Atutxa Salazar et al.

Research on language technology for the development of medical applications is currently a hot topic in Natural Language Understanding and Generation. Thus, a number of large language models (LLMs) have recently been adapted to the medical domain, so that they can be used as a tool for mediating in human-AI interaction. While these LLMs display competitive performance on automated medical texts benchmarks, they have been pre-trained and evaluated with a focus on a single language (English mostly). This is particularly true of text-to-text models, which typically require large amounts of domain-specific pre-training data, often not easily accessible for many languages. In this paper, we address these shortcomings by compiling, to the best of our knowledge, the largest multilingual corpus for the medical domain in four languages, namely English, French, Italian and Spanish. This new corpus has been used to train Medical mT5, the first open-source text-to-text multilingual model for the medical domain. Additionally, we present two new evaluation benchmarks for all four languages with the aim of facilitating multilingual research in this domain. A comprehensive evaluation shows that Medical mT5 outperforms both encoders and similarly sized text-to-text models for the Spanish, French, and Italian benchmarks, while being competitive with current state-of-the-art LLMs in English.

Henning Wachsmuth, Gabriella Lapesa, Elena Cabrio et al.

The computational treatment of arguments on controversial issues has been subject to extensive NLP research, due to its envisioned impact on opinion formation, decision making, writing education, and the like. A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality - but it is also particularly challenging. In this position paper, we start from a brief survey of argument quality research, where we identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment. We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment. Rather than just fine-tuning LLMs towards leaderboard chasing on assessment tasks, they need to be instructed systematically with argumentation theories and scenarios as well as with ways to solve argument-related problems. We discuss the real-world opportunities and ethical issues emerging thereby.

Greta Damo, Elena Cabrio, Serena Villata

Counter-speech (CS) is a key strategy for mitigating online Hate Speech (HS), yet defining the criteria to assess its effectiveness remains an open challenge. We propose a novel computational framework for CS effectiveness classification, grounded in linguistics, communication and argumentation concepts. Our framework defines six core dimensions - Clarity, Evidence, Emotional Appeal, Rebuttal, Audience Adaptation, and Fairness - which we use to annotate 4,214 CS instances from two benchmark datasets, resulting in a novel linguistic resource released to the community. In addition, we propose two classification strategies, multi-task and dependency-based, achieving strong results (0.94 and 0.96 average F1 respectively on both expert- and user-written CS), outperforming standard baselines, and revealing strong interdependence among dimensions.

Federica Granese, Serena Villata, Charles Bouveyron

Online topic models are unsupervised algorithms to identify latent topics in data streams that continuously evolve over time. Although these methods naturally align with real-world scenarios, they have received considerably less attention from the community compared to their offline counterparts, due to specific additional challenges. To tackle these issues, we present SB-SETM, an innovative model extending the Embedded Topic Model (ETM) to process data streams by merging models formed on successive partial document batches. To this end, SB-SETM (i) leverages a truncated stick-breaking construction for the topic-per-document distribution, enabling the model to automatically infer from the data the appropriate number of active topics at each timestep; and (ii) introduces a merging strategy for topic embeddings based on a continuous formulation of optimal transport adapted to the high dimensionality of the latent topic space. Numerical experiments show SB-SETM outperforming baselines on simulated scenarios. We extensively test it on a real-world corpus of news articles covering the Russian-Ukrainian war throughout 2022-2023.

Greta Damo, Elena Cabrio, Serena Villata

Counter-speech generation is at the core of many expert activities, such as fact-checking and hate speech, to counter harmful content. Yet, existing work treats counter-speech generation as pure text generation task, mainly based on Large Language Models or NGO experts. These approaches show severe drawbacks due to the limited reliability and coherence in the generated countering text, and in scalability, respectively. To close this gap, we introduce a novel framework to model counter-speech generation as knowledge-wise text generation process. Our framework integrates advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines to ensure the generation of trustworthy counter-speech for 8 main target groups identified in the hate speech literature, including women, people of colour, persons with disabilities, migrants, Muslims, Jews, LGBT persons, and other. We built a knowledge base over the United Nations Digital Library, EUR-Lex and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, comprising a total of 32,792 texts. We use the MultiTarget-CONAN dataset to empirically assess the quality of the generated counter-speech, both through standard metrics (i.e., JudgeLM) and a human evaluation. Results show that our framework outperforms standard LLM baselines and competitive approach, on both assessments. The resulting framework and the knowledge base pave the way for studying trustworthy and sound counter-speech generation, in hate speech and beyond.

Oana Cocarascu, Elena Cabrio, Serena Villata et al.

Argument Mining is the research area which aims at extracting argument components and predicting argumentative relations (i.e.,support and attack) from text. In particular, numerous approaches have been proposed in the literature to predict the relations holding between the arguments, and application-specific annotated resources were built for this purpose. Despite the fact that these resources have been created to experiment on the same task, the definition of a single relation prediction method to be successfully applied to a significant portion of these datasets is an open research problem in Argument Mining. This means that none of the methods proposed in the literature can be easily ported from one resource to another. In this paper, we address this problem by proposing a set of dataset independent strong neural baselines which obtain homogeneous results on all the datasets proposed in the literature for the argumentative relation prediction task. Thus, our baselines can be employed by the Argument Mining community to compare more effectively how well a method performs on the argumentative relation prediction task.

Fabien Gandon, Franck Michel, Olivier Corby et al.

This article is a collective position paper from the Wimmics research team, expressing our vision of how Web graph data technologies should evolve in the future in order to ensure a high-level of interoperability between the many types of applications that produce and consume graph data. Wimmics stands for Web-Instrumented Man-Machine Interactions, Communities, and Semantics. We are a joint research team between INRIA Sophia Antipolis-M{é}diterran{é}e and I3S (CNRS and Universit{é} C{ô}te d'Azur). Our challenge is to bridge formal semantics and social semantics on the web. Our research areas are graph-oriented knowledge representation, reasoning and operationalization to model and support actors, actions and interactions in web-based epistemic communities. The application of our research is supporting and fostering interactions in online communities and management of their resources. In this position paper, we emphasize the need to extend the semantic Web standard stack to address and fulfill new graph data needs, as well as the importance of remaining compatible with existing recommendations, in particular the RDF stack, to avoid the painful duplication of models, languages, frameworks, etc. The following sections group motivations for different directions of work and collect reasons for the creation of a working group on RDF 2.0 and other recommendations of the RDF family.

Beishui Liao, Nir Oren, Leendert van der Torre et al.

To resolve conflicts among norms, various nonmonotonic formalisms can be used to perform prioritized normative reasoning. Meanwhile, formal argumentation provides a way to represent nonmonotonic logics. In this paper, we propose a representation of prioritized normative reasoning by argumentation. Using hierarchical abstract normative systems, we define three kinds of prioritized normative reasoning approaches, called Greedy, Reduction, and Optimization. Then, after formulating an argumentation theory for a hierarchical abstract normative system, we show that for a totally ordered hierarchical abstract normative system, Greedy and Reduction can be represented in argumentation by applying the weakest link and the last link principles respectively, and Optimization can be represented by introducing additional defeats capturing the idea that for each argument that contains a norm not belonging to the maximal obeyable set then this argument should be rejected.

Fabien Lucien Gandon, Michel Buffa, Elena Cabrio et al.

This paper describes several results of Wimmics, a research lab which names stands for: web-instrumented man-machine interactions, communities, and semantics. The approaches introduced here rely on graph-oriented knowledge representation, reasoning and operationalization to model and support actors, actions and interactions in web-based epistemic communities. The re-search results are applied to support and foster interactions in online communities and manage their resources.

Elena Cabrio, Serena Villata

The connections among natural language processing and argumentation theory are becoming stronger in the latest years, with a growing amount of works going in this direction, in different scenarios and applying heterogeneous techniques. In this paper, we present two datasets we built to cope with the combination of the Textual Entailment framework and bipolar abstract argumentation. In our approach, such datasets are used to automatically identify through a Textual Entailment system the relations among the arguments (i.e., attack, support), and then the resulting bipolar argumentation graphs are analyzed to compute the accepted arguments.