The rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed natural language processing and broadened its impact across research and society. Yet, systematic evaluation of these models, especially for languages beyond English, remains limited. "Challenging the Abilities of LAnguage Models in ITAlian" (CALAMITA) is a large-scale collaborative benchmarking initiative for Italian, coordinated under the Italian Association for Computational Linguistics. Unlike existing efforts that focus on leaderboards, CALAMITA foregrounds methodology: it federates more than 80 contributors from academia, industry, and the public sector to design, document, and evaluate a diverse collection of tasks, covering linguistic competence, commonsense reasoning, factual consistency, fairness, summarization, translation, and code generation. Through this process, we not only assembled a benchmark of over 20 tasks and almost 100 subtasks, but also established a centralized evaluation pipeline that supports heterogeneous datasets and metrics. We report results for four open-weight LLMs, highlighting systematic strengths and weaknesses across abilities, as well as challenges in task-specific evaluation. Beyond quantitative results, CALAMITA exposes methodological lessons: the necessity of fine-grained, task-representative metrics, the importance of harmonized pipelines, and the benefits and limitations of broad community engagement. CALAMITA is conceived as a rolling benchmark, enabling continuous integration of new tasks and models. This makes it both a resource -- the most comprehensive and diverse benchmark for Italian to date -- and a framework for sustainable, community-driven evaluation. We argue that this combination offers a blueprint for other languages and communities seeking inclusive and rigorous LLM evaluation practices.

Interacting with knowledge graphs can be a daunting task for people without a background in computer science since the query language that is used (SPARQL) has a high barrier of entry. Large language models (LLMs) can lower that barrier by providing support in the form of Text2SPARQL translation. In this paper we introduce a generalized method based on SPINACH, an LLM backed agent that translates natural language questions to SPARQL queries not in a single shot, but as an iterative process of exploration and execution. We describe the overall architecture and reasoning behind our design decisions, and also conduct a thorough analysis of the agent behavior to gain insights into future areas for targeted improvements. This work was motivated by the Text2SPARQL challenge, a challenge that was held to facilitate improvements in the Text2SPARQL domain.

AI-based recommender systems increasingly influence recruitment decisions. Thus, transparency and responsible adoption in Human Resource Management (HRM) are critical. This study examines how HR managers' AI literacy influences their subjective perception and objective understanding of explainable AI (XAI) elements in recruiting recommender dashboards. In an online experiment, 410 German-based HR managers compared baseline dashboards to versions enriched with three XAI styles: important features, counterfactuals, and model criteria. Our results show that the dashboards used in practice do not explain AI results and even keep AI elements opaque. However, while adding XAI features improves subjective perceptions of helpfulness and trust among users with moderate or high AI literacy, it does not increase their objective understanding. It may even reduce accurate understanding, especially with complex explanations. Only overlays of important features significantly aided the interpretations of high-literacy users. Our findings highlight that the benefits of XAI in recruitment depend on users' AI literacy, emphasizing the need for tailored explanation strategies and targeted literacy training in HRM to ensure fair, transparent, and effective adoption of AI.

Over the past few years, table interpretation tasks have made significant progress due to their importance and the introduction of new technologies and benchmarks in the field. This work experiments with a hybrid approach for detecting relationships among columns of unlabeled tabular data, using a Knowledge Graph (KG) as a reference point, a task known as CPA. This approach leverages large language models (LLMs) while employing statistical analysis to reduce the search space of potential KG relations. The main modules of this approach for reducing the search space are domain and range constraints detection, as well as relation co-appearance analysis. The experimental evaluation on two benchmark datasets provided by the SemTab challenge assesses the influence of each module and the effectiveness of different state-of-the-art LLMs at various levels of quantization. The experiments were performed, as well as at different prompting techniques. The proposed methodology, which is publicly available on github, proved to be competitive with state-of-the-art approaches on these datasets.

Ontology alignment plays a crucial role in integrating diverse data sources across domains. There is a large plethora of systems that tackle the ontology alignment problem, yet challenges persist in producing highly quality correspondences among a set of input ontologies. Human-in-the-loop during the alignment process is essential in applications requiring very accurate mappings. User involvement is, however, expensive when dealing with large ontologies. In this paper, we explore the feasibility of using Large Language Models (LLM) as an alternative to the domain expert. The use of the LLM focuses only on the validation of the subset of correspondences where an ontology alignment system is very uncertain. We have conducted an extensive evaluation over several matching tasks of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI), analysing the performance of several state-of-the-art LLMs using different ontology-driven prompt templates. The LLM results are also compared against simulated Oracles with variable error rates.

Automated grading systems can efficiently score short-answer responses, yet they often fail to indicate when a grading decision is uncertain or potentially contentious. We introduce semantic entropy, a measure of variability across multiple GPT-4-generated explanations for the same student response, as a proxy for human grader disagreement. By clustering rationales via entailment-based similarity and computing entropy over these clusters, we quantify the diversity of justifications without relying on final output scores. We address three research questions: (1) Does semantic entropy align with human grader disagreement? (2) Does it generalize across academic subjects? (3) Is it sensitive to structural task features such as source dependency? Experiments on the ASAP-SAS dataset show that semantic entropy correlates with rater disagreement, varies meaningfully across subjects, and increases in tasks requiring interpretive reasoning. Our findings position semantic entropy as an interpretable uncertainty signal that supports more transparent and trustworthy AI-assisted grading workflows.

The use of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model and its variants for classifying collaborative problem solving (CPS) has been extensively explored within the AI in Education community. However, limited attention has been given to understanding how individual tokenised words in the dataset contribute to the model's classification decisions. Enhancing the explainability of BERT-based CPS diagnostics is essential to better inform end users such as teachers, thereby fostering greater trust and facilitating wider adoption in education. This study undertook a preliminary step towards model transparency and explainability by using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to examine how different tokenised words in transcription data contributed to a BERT model's classification of CPS processes. The findings suggested that well-performing classifications did not necessarily equate to a reasonable explanation for the classification decisions. Particular tokenised words were used frequently to affect classifications. The analysis also identified a spurious word, which contributed positively to the classification but was not semantically meaningful to the class. While such model transparency is unlikely to be useful to an end user to improve their practice, it can help them not to overrely on LLM diagnostics and ignore their human expertise. We conclude the workshop paper by noting that the extent to which the model appropriately uses the tokens for its classification is associated with the number of classes involved. It calls for an investigation into the exploration of ensemble model architectures and the involvement of human-AI complementarity for CPS diagnosis, since considerable human reasoning is still required for fine-grained discrimination of CPS subskills.

This submission to the binary AI detection task is based on a modular stylometric pipeline, where: public spaCy models are used for text preprocessing (including tokenisation, named entity recognition, dependency parsing, part-of-speech tagging, and morphology annotation) and extracting several thousand features (frequencies of n-grams of the above linguistic annotations); light-gradient boosting machines are used as the classifier. We collect a large corpus of more than 500 000 machine-generated texts for the classifier's training. We explore several parameter options to increase the classifier's capacity and take advantage of that training set. Our approach follows the non-neural, computationally inexpensive but explainable approach found effective previously.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) can assist developing program code beside many other things, but can they support working with Knowledge Graphs (KGs) as well? Which LLM is offering the best capabilities in the field of Semantic Web and Knowledge Graph Engineering (KGE)? Is this possible to determine without checking many answers manually? The LLM-KG-Bench framework in Version 3.0 is designed to answer these questions. It consists of an extensible set of tasks for automated evaluation of LLM answers and covers different aspects of working with semantic technologies. In this paper the LLM-KG-Bench framework is presented in Version 3 along with a dataset of prompts, answers and evaluations generated with it and several state-of-the-art LLMs. Significant enhancements have been made to the framework since its initial release, including an updated task API that offers greater flexibility in handling evaluation tasks, revised tasks, and extended support for various open models through the vllm library, among other improvements. A comprehensive dataset has been generated using more than 30 contemporary open and proprietary LLMs, enabling the creation of exemplary model cards that demonstrate the models' capabilities in working with RDF and SPARQL, as well as comparing their performance on Turtle and JSON-LD RDF serialization tasks.

Causal discovery traditionally relies on statistical methods applied to observational data, often requiring large datasets and assumptions about underlying causal structures. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced new possibilities for causal discovery by providing domain expert knowledge. However, it remains unclear whether LLMs can effectively process observational data for causal discovery. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs for data-driven causal discovery by integrating observational data for LLM-based reasoning. Specifically, we examine whether LLMs can effectively utilize observational data through two prompting strategies: pairwise prompting and breadth first search (BFS)-based prompting. In both approaches, we incorporate the observational data directly into the prompt to assess LLMs' ability to infer causal relationships from such data. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that incorporating observational data enhances causal discovery, boosting F1 scores by up to 0.11 point using both pairwise and BFS LLM-based prompting, while outperforming traditional statistical causal discovery baseline by up to 0.52 points. Our findings highlight the potential and limitations of LLMs for data-driven causal discovery, demonstrating their ability to move beyond textual metadata and effectively interpret and utilize observational data for more informed causal reasoning. Our studies lays the groundwork for future advancements toward fully LLM-driven causal discovery.