Dynamic Knowledge Integration for Evidence-Driven Counter-Argument Generation with Large Language Models

This paper investigates the role of dynamic external knowledge integration in improving counter-argument generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs have shown promise in argumentative tasks, their tendency to generate lengthy, potentially unfactual responses highlights the need for more controlled and evidence-based approaches. We introduce a new manually curated dataset of argument and counter-argument pairs specifically designed to balance argumentative complexity with evaluative feasibility. We also propose a new LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation methodology that shows a stronger correlation with human judgments compared to traditional reference-based metrics. Our experimental results demonstrate that integrating dynamic external knowledge from the web significantly improves the quality of generated counter-arguments, particularly in terms of relatedness, persuasiveness, and factuality. The findings suggest that combining LLMs with real-time external knowledge retrieval offers a promising direction for developing more effective and reliable counter-argumentation systems.

Truth Knows No Language: Evaluating Truthfulness Beyond English

We introduce a professionally translated extension of the TruthfulQA benchmark designed to evaluate truthfulness in Basque, Catalan, Galician, and Spanish. Truthfulness evaluations of large language models (LLMs) have primarily been conducted in English. However, the ability of LLMs to maintain truthfulness across languages remains under-explored. Our study evaluates 12 state-of-the-art open LLMs, comparing base and instruction-tuned models using human evaluation, multiple-choice metrics, and LLM-as-a-Judge scoring. Our findings reveal that, while LLMs perform best in English and worst in Basque (the lowest-resourced language), overall truthfulness discrepancies across languages are smaller than anticipated. Furthermore, we show that LLM-as-a-Judge correlates more closely with human judgments than multiple-choice metrics, and that informativeness plays a critical role in truthfulness assessment. Our results also indicate that machine translation provides a viable approach for extending truthfulness benchmarks to additional languages, offering a scalable alternative to professional translation. Finally, we observe that universal knowledge questions are better handled across languages than context- and time-dependent ones, highlighting the need for truthfulness evaluations that account for cultural and temporal variability. Dataset and code are publicly available under open licenses.

Critical Questions Generation: Motivation and Challenges

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has brought impressive performances on mitigation strategies against misinformation, such as counterargument generation. However, LLMs are still seriously hindered by outdated knowledge and by their tendency to generate hallucinated content. In order to circumvent these issues, we propose a new task, namely, Critical Questions Generation, consisting of processing an argumentative text to generate the critical questions (CQs) raised by it. In argumentation theory CQs are tools designed to lay bare the blind spots of an argument by pointing at the information it could be missing. Thus, instead of trying to deploy LLMs to produce knowledgeable and relevant counterarguments, we use them to question arguments, without requiring any external knowledge. Research on CQs Generation using LLMs requires a reference dataset for large scale experimentation. Thus, in this work we investigate two complementary methods to create such a resource: (i) instantiating CQs templates as defined by Walton's argumentation theory and (ii), using LLMs as CQs generators. By doing so, we contribute with a procedure to establish what is a valid CQ and conclude that, while LLMs are reasonable CQ generators, they still have a wide margin for improvement in this task.

CasiMedicos-Arg: A Medical Question Answering Dataset Annotated with Explanatory Argumentative Structures

Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issue also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify \textit{why} a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support), resulting in the Multilingual CasiMedicos-Arg dataset which consists of 558 clinical cases in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.

Argument Mining in Data Scarce Settings: Cross-lingual Transfer and Few-shot Techniques

Recent research on sequence labelling has been exploring different strategies to mitigate the lack of manually annotated data for the large majority of the world languages. Among others, the most successful approaches have been based on (i) the cross-lingual transfer capabilities of multilingual pre-trained language models (model-transfer), (ii) data translation and label projection (data-transfer) and (iii), prompt-based learning by reusing the mask objective to exploit the few-shot capabilities of pre-trained language models (few-shot). Previous work seems to conclude that model-transfer outperforms data-transfer methods and that few-shot techniques based on prompting are superior to updating the model's weights via fine-tuning. In this paper, we empirically demonstrate that, for Argument Mining, a sequence labelling task which requires the detection of long and complex discourse structures, previous insights on cross-lingual transfer or few-shot learning do not apply. Contrary to previous work, we show that for Argument Mining data transfer obtains better results than model-transfer and that fine-tuning outperforms few-shot methods. Regarding the former, the domain of the dataset used for data-transfer seems to be a deciding factor, while, for few-shot, the type of task (length and complexity of the sequence spans) and sampling method prove to be crucial.

A LLM-Based Ranking Method for the Evaluation of Automatic Counter-Narrative Generation

The proliferation of misinformation and harmful narratives in online discourse has underscored the critical need for effective Counter Narrative (CN) generation techniques. However, existing automatic evaluation methods often lack interpretability and fail to capture the nuanced relationship between generated CNs and human perception. Aiming to achieve a higher correlation with human judgments, this paper proposes a novel approach to asses generated CNs that consists on the use of a Large Language Model (LLM) as a evaluator. By comparing generated CNs pairwise in a tournament-style format, we establish a model ranking pipeline that achieves a correlation of $0.88$ with human preference. As an additional contribution, we leverage LLMs as zero-shot (ZS) CN generators and conduct a comparative analysis of chat, instruct, and base models, exploring their respective strengths and limitations. Through meticulous evaluation, including fine-tuning experiments, we elucidate the differences in performance and responsiveness to domain-specific data. We conclude that chat-aligned models in ZS are the best option for carrying out the task, provided they do not refuse to generate an answer due to security concerns.

Political Leaning Inference through Plurinational Scenarios

Social media users express their political preferences via interaction with other users, by spontaneous declarations or by participation in communities within the network. This makes a social network such as Twitter a valuable data source to study computational science approaches to political learning inference. In this work we focus on three diverse regions in Spain (Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia) to explore various methods for multi-party categorization, required to analyze evolving and complex political landscapes, and compare it with binary left-right approaches. We use a two-step method involving unsupervised user representations obtained from the retweets and their subsequent use for political leaning detection. Comprehensive experimentation on a newly collected and curated dataset comprising labeled users and their interactions demonstrate the effectiveness of using Relational Embeddings as representation method for political ideology detection in both binary and multi-party frameworks, even with limited training data. Finally, data visualization illustrates the ability of the Relational Embeddings to capture intricate intra-group and inter-group political affinities.

Medical mT5: An Open-Source Multilingual Text-to-Text LLM for The Medical Domain

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.

Meta4XNLI: A Crosslingual Parallel Corpus for Metaphor Detection and Interpretation

Metaphors, although occasionally unperceived, are ubiquitous in our everyday language. Thus, it is crucial for Language Models to be able to grasp the underlying meaning of this kind of figurative language. In this work, we present Meta4XNLI, a novel parallel dataset for the tasks of metaphor detection and interpretation that contains metaphor annotations in both Spanish and English. We investigate language models' metaphor identification and understanding abilities through a series of monolingual and cross-lingual experiments by leveraging our proposed corpus. In order to comprehend how these non-literal expressions affect models' performance, we look over the results and perform an error analysis. Additionally, parallel data offers many potential opportunities to investigate metaphor transferability between these languages and the impact of translation on the development of multilingual annotated resources.

MedExpQA: Multilingual Benchmarking of Large Language Models for Medical Question Answering

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential of facilitating the development of Artificial Intelligence technology to assist medical experts for interactive decision support, which has been demonstrated by their competitive performances in Medical QA. However, while impressive, the required quality bar for medical applications remains far from being achieved. Currently, LLMs remain challenged by outdated knowledge and by their tendency to generate hallucinated content. Furthermore, most benchmarks to assess medical knowledge lack reference gold explanations which means that it is not possible to evaluate the reasoning of LLMs predictions. Finally, the situation is particularly grim if we consider benchmarking LLMs for languages other than English which remains, as far as we know, a totally neglected topic. In order to address these shortcomings, in this paper we present MedExpQA, the first multilingual benchmark based on medical exams to evaluate LLMs in Medical Question Answering. To the best of our knowledge, MedExpQA includes for the first time reference gold explanations written by medical doctors which can be leveraged to establish various gold-based upper-bounds for comparison with LLMs performance. Comprehensive multilingual experimentation using both the gold reference explanations and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) approaches show that performance of LLMs still has large room for improvement, especially for languages other than English. Furthermore, and despite using state-of-the-art RAG methods, our results also demonstrate the difficulty of obtaining and integrating readily available medical knowledge that may positively impact results on downstream evaluations for Medical Question Answering. So far the benchmark is available in four languages, but we hope that this work may encourage further development to other languages.