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.

The potential effectiveness of counterspeech as a hate speech mitigation strategy is attracting increasing interest in the NLG research community, particularly towards the task of automatically producing it. However, automatically generated responses often lack the argumentative richness which characterises expert-produced counterspeech. In this work, we focus on two aspects of counterspeech generation to produce more cogent responses. First, by investigating the tension between helpfulness and harmlessness of LLMs, we test whether the presence of safety guardrails hinders the quality of the generations. Secondly, we assess whether attacking a specific component of the hate speech results in a more effective argumentative strategy to fight online hate. By conducting an extensive human and automatic evaluation, we show how the presence of safety guardrails can be detrimental also to a task that inherently aims at fostering positive social interactions. Moreover, our results show that attacking a specific component of the hate speech, and in particular its implicit negative stereotype and its hateful parts, leads to higher-quality generations.

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.

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.

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.

In this paper we adapt the semi-supervised deep learning architecture known as Convolutional Ladder Networks, from the domain of computer vision, and explore how well it works for a semi-supervised Named Entity Recognition and Classification task with legal data. The idea of exploring a semi-supervised technique is to asses the impact of large amounts of unsupervised data (cheap to obtain) in specific tasks that have little annotated data, in order to develop robust models that are less prone to overfitting. In order to achieve this, first we must check the impact on a task that is easier to measure. We are presenting some preliminary results, however, the experiments carried out show some very interesting insights that foster further research in the topic.

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{\'e}diterran{\'e}e and I3S (CNRS and Universit{\'e} C{\^o}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.

In this work, we apply argumentation mining techniques, in particular relation prediction, to study political speeches in monological form, where there is no direct interaction between opponents. We argue that this kind of technique can effectively support researchers in history, social and political sciences, which must deal with an increasing amount of data in digital form and need ways to automatically extract and analyse argumentation patterns. We test and discuss our approach based on the analysis of documents issued by R. Nixon and J. F. Kennedy during 1960 presidential campaign. We rely on a supervised classifier to predict argument relations (i.e., support and attack), obtaining an accuracy of 0.72 on a dataset of 1,462 argument pairs. The application of argument mining to such data allows not only to highlight the main points of agreement and disagreement between the candidates' arguments over the campaign issues such as Cuba, disarmament and health-care, but also an in-depth argumentative analysis of the respective viewpoints on these topics.

Towards Artificial Argumentation

The field of computational models of argument is emerging as an important aspect of artificial intelligence research. The reason for this is based on the recognition that if we are to develop robust intelligent systems, then it is imperative that they can handle incomplete and inconsistent information in a way that somehow emulates the way humans tackle such a complex task. And one of the key ways that humans do this is to use argumentation either internally, by evaluating arguments and counterarguments‚ or externally, by for instance entering into a discussion or debate where arguments are exchanged. As we report in this review, recent developments in the field are leading to technology for artificial argumentation, in the legal, medical, and e-government domains, and interesting tools for argument mining, for debating technologies, and for argumentation solvers are emerging.