LLMs for Argument Mining: Detection, Extraction, and Relationship Classification of pre-defined Arguments in Online Comments

Automated large-scale analysis of public discussions around contested issues like abortion requires detecting and understanding the use of arguments. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in language processing tasks, their performance in mining topic-specific, pre-defined arguments in online comments remains underexplored. We evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs on three argument mining tasks using datasets comprising over 2,000 opinion comments across six polarizing topics. Quantitative evaluation suggests an overall strong performance across the three tasks, especially for large and fine-tuned LLMs, albeit at a significant environmental cost. However, a detailed error analysis revealed systematic shortcomings on long and nuanced comments and emotionally charged language, raising concerns for downstream applications like content moderation or opinion analysis. Our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for automated argument analysis in online comments.

Comparing Moral Values in Western English-speaking societies and LLMs with Word Associations

As the impact of large language models increases, understanding the moral values they reflect becomes ever more important. Assessing the nature of moral values as understood by these models via direct prompting is challenging due to potential leakage of human norms into model training data, and their sensitivity to prompt formulation. Instead, we propose to use word associations, which have been shown to reflect moral reasoning in humans, as low-level underlying representations to obtain a more robust picture of LLMs' moral reasoning. We study moral differences in associations from western English-speaking communities and LLMs trained predominantly on English data. First, we create a large dataset of LLM-generated word associations, resembling an existing data set of human word associations. Next, we propose a novel method to propagate moral values based on seed words derived from Moral Foundation Theory through the human and LLM-generated association graphs. Finally, we compare the resulting moral conceptualizations, highlighting detailed but systematic differences between moral values emerging from English speakers and LLM associations.

Automated Business Process Analysis: An LLM-Based Approach to Value Assessment

Business processes are fundamental to organizational operations, yet their optimization remains challenging due to the timeconsuming nature of manual process analysis. Our paper harnesses Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate value-added analysis, a qualitative process analysis technique that aims to identify steps in the process that do not deliver value. To date, this technique is predominantly manual, time-consuming, and subjective. Our method offers a more principled approach which operates in two phases: first, decomposing high-level activities into detailed steps to enable granular analysis, and second, performing a value-added analysis to classify each step according to Lean principles. This approach enables systematic identification of waste while maintaining the semantic understanding necessary for qualitative analysis. We develop our approach using 50 business process models, for which we collect and publish manual ground-truth labels. Our evaluation, comparing zero-shot baselines with more structured prompts reveals (a) a consistent benefit of structured prompting and (b) promising performance for both tasks. We discuss the potential for LLMs to augment human expertise in qualitative process analysis while reducing the time and subjectivity inherent in manual approaches.

Moderation Matters:Measuring Conversational Moderation Impact in English as a Second Language Group Discussion

English as a Second Language (ESL) speakers often struggle to engage in group discussions due to language barriers. While moderators can facilitate participation, few studies assess conversational engagement and evaluate moderation effectiveness. To address this gap, we develop a dataset comprising 17 sessions from an online ESL conversation club, which includes both moderated and non-moderated discussions. We then introduce an approach that integrates automatic ESL dialogue assessment and a framework that categorizes moderation strategies. Our findings indicate that moderators help improve the flow of topics and start/end a conversation. Interestingly, we find active acknowledgement and encouragement to be the most effective moderation strategy, while excessive information and opinion sharing by moderators has a negative impact. Ultimately, our study paves the way for analyzing ESL group discussions and the role of moderators in non-native conversation settings.

Control Illusion: The Failure of Instruction Hierarchies in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed with hierarchical instruction schemes, where certain instructions (e.g., system-level directives) are expected to take precedence over others (e.g., user messages). Yet, we lack a systematic understanding of how effectively these hierarchical control mechanisms work. We introduce a systematic evaluation framework based on constraint prioritization to assess how well LLMs enforce instruction hierarchies. Our experiments across six state-of-the-art LLMs reveal that models struggle with consistent instruction prioritization, even for simple formatting conflicts. We find that the widely-adopted system/user prompt separation fails to establish a reliable instruction hierarchy, and models exhibit strong inherent biases toward certain constraint types regardless of their priority designation. While controlled prompt engineering and model fine-tuning show modest improvements, our results indicate that instruction hierarchy enforcement is not robustly realized, calling for deeper architectural innovations beyond surface-level modifications.

Improving Image Captioning by Mimicking Human Reformulation Feedback at Inference-time

Incorporating automatically predicted human feedback into the process of training generative models has attracted substantial recent interest, while feedback at inference time has received less attention. The typical feedback at training time, i.e., preferences of choice given two samples, does not naturally transfer to the inference phase. We introduce a novel type of feedback -- caption reformulations -- and train models to mimic reformulation feedback based on human annotations. Our method does not require training the image captioning model itself, thereby demanding substantially less computational effort. We experiment with two types of reformulation feedback: first, we collect a dataset of human reformulations that correct errors in the generated captions. We find that incorporating reformulation models trained on this data into the inference phase of existing image captioning models results in improved captions, especially when the original captions are of low quality. We apply our method to non-English image captioning, a domain where robust models are less prevalent, and gain substantial improvement. Second, we apply reformulations to style transfer. Quantitative evaluations reveal state-of-the-art performance on German image captioning and English style transfer, while human validation with a detailed comparative framework exposes the specific axes of improvement.

Word reuse and combination support efficient communication of emerging concepts

A key function of the lexicon is to express novel concepts as they emerge over time through a process known as lexicalization. The most common lexicalization strategies are the reuse and combination of existing words, but they have typically been studied separately in the areas of word meaning extension and word formation. Here we offer an information-theoretic account of how both strategies are constrained by a fundamental tradeoff between competing communicative pressures: word reuse tends to preserve the average length of word forms at the cost of less precision, while word combination tends to produce more informative words at the expense of greater word length. We test our proposal against a large dataset of reuse items and compounds that appeared in English, French and Finnish over the past century. We find that these historically emerging items achieve higher levels of communicative efficiency than hypothetical ways of constructing the lexicon, and both literal reuse items and compounds tend to be more efficient than their non-literal counterparts. These results suggest that reuse and combination are both consistent with a unified account of lexicalization grounded in the theory of efficient communication.

WHoW: A Cross-domain Approach for Analysing Conversation Moderation

We propose WHoW, an evaluation framework for analyzing the facilitation strategies of moderators across different domains/scenarios by examining their motives (Why), dialogue acts (How) and target speaker (Who). Using this framework, we annotated 5,657 moderation sentences with human judges and 15,494 sentences with GPT-4o from two domains: TV debates and radio panel discussions. Comparative analysis demonstrates the framework's cross-domain generalisability and reveals distinct moderation strategies: debate moderators emphasise coordination and facilitate interaction through questions and instructions, while panel discussion moderators prioritize information provision and actively participate in discussions. Our analytical framework works for different moderation scenarios, enhances our understanding of moderation behaviour through automatic large-scale analysis, and facilitates the development of moderator agents.

Surveying the Landscape of Image Captioning Evaluation: A Comprehensive Taxonomy and Novel Ensemble Method

The task of image captioning has recently been gaining popularity, and with it the complex task of evaluating the quality of image captioning models. In this work, we present the first survey and taxonomy of over 70 different image captioning metrics and their usage in hundreds of papers. We find that despite the diversity of proposed metrics, the vast majority of studies rely on only five popular metrics, which we show to be weakly correlated with human judgements. Instead, we propose EnsembEval -- an ensemble of evaluation methods achieving the highest reported correlation with human judgements across 5 image captioning datasets, showing there is a lot of room for improvement by leveraging a diverse set of metrics.

Generative Debunking of Climate Misinformation

Misinformation about climate change causes numerous negative impacts, necessitating corrective responses. Psychological research has offered various strategies for reducing the influence of climate misinformation, such as the fact-myth-fallacy-fact-structure. However, practically implementing corrective interventions at scale represents a challenge. Automatic detection and correction of misinformation offers a solution to the misinformation problem. This study documents the development of large language models that accept as input a climate myth and produce a debunking that adheres to the fact-myth-fallacy-fact (``truth sandwich'') structure, by incorporating contrarian claim classification and fallacy detection into an LLM prompting framework. We combine open (Mixtral, Palm2) and proprietary (GPT-4) LLMs with prompting strategies of varying complexity. Experiments reveal promising performance of GPT-4 and Mixtral if combined with structured prompts. We identify specific challenges of debunking generation and human evaluation, and map out avenues for future work. We release a dataset of high-quality truth-sandwich debunkings, source code and a demo of the debunking system.