LLMs are powerful generators of synthetic data, which are used for training smaller, specific models. This is especially valuable for low-resource languages, where human-labelled data is scarce but LLMs can still produce high-quality text. However, LLMs differ in how useful their outputs are for training. Selecting the best LLM as a generator is challenging because extrinsic evaluation requires costly human annotations (which are often unavailable for low-resource languages), while intrinsic metrics correlate poorly with downstream performance. We introduce Round-robin Synthetic data Evaluation (RoSE), a proxy metric for selecting the best LLM generator without human test sets. RoSE trains a small model on the outputs of a candidate generator (LLM) and then evaluates it on generated synthetic examples from all other candidate LLMs. The final RoSE score is the mean performance of this small model. Across six LLMs, eleven languages, and three tasks (sentiment, topic, intent), RoSE identifies the optimal generator more often than any other intrinsic heuristics. RoSE outperforms intrinsic heuristics and comes within 0.76 percentage points of the optimal generator baseline. This result is measured in terms of downstream performance, obtained by training a small model on the chosen generator’s outputs (optimal vs. proxy-metric–selected) and evaluating it on human-labelled test data. Additionally, RoSE is the only metric to achieve a positive correlation with performance on human test data.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable multilingual capabilities, making them promising tools in both high- and low-resource languages. One particularly valuable use case is generating synthetic samples that can be used to train smaller models in low-resource scenarios where human-labelled data is scarce. In this work, we investigate whether these synthetic data generation capabilities can serve as a form of distillation, producing smaller models that perform on par with or even better than massive LLMs across languages and tasks. To this end, we use a state-of-the-art multilingual LLM to generate synthetic datasets covering 11 languages and 4 classification tasks. These datasets are then used to train smaller models via fine-tuning or instruction tuning, or as synthetic in-context examples for compact LLMs. Our experiments show that even small amounts of synthetic data enable smaller models to outperform the large generator itself, particularly in low-resource languages. Overall, the results suggest that LLMs are best utilised as generators (teachers) rather than classifiers, producing data that empowers smaller and more efficient multilingual models.

Large language models (LLMs) are beginning to reshape how media professionals verify information, yet automated support for detecting check-worthy claims—a key step in the fact-checking process—remains limited. We introduce the Multi-Check-Worthy (MultiCW) dataset, a balanced multilingual benchmark for check-worthy claim detection spanning 16 languages, six topical domains, and two writing styles. It consists of 123,722 samples, evenly distributed between noisy (informal) and structured (formal) texts, with balanced representation of check-worthy and non-check-worthy classes across all languages. To probe robustness, we also introduce an equally balanced out-of-distribution evaluation set of 27,761 samples in 4 additional languages. To provide baselines, we benchmark three common fine-tuned multilingual transformers against a diverse set of 15 commercial and open LLMs under zero-shot settings. Our findings show that fine-tuned models consistently outperform zero-shot LLMs on claim classification and show strong out-of-distribution generalization across languages, domains, and styles. MultiCW provides a rigorous multilingual resource for advancing automated fact-checking and enables systematic comparisons between fine-tuned models and cutting-edge LLMs on the check-worthy claim detection task.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate synthetic textual data for training smaller specialized models. However, a comparison of various generation strategies for low-resource language settings is lacking. While various prompting strategies have been proposed—such as demonstrations, label-based summaries, and self-revision—their comparative effectiveness remains unclear, especially for low-resource languages. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the performance of these generation strategies and their combinations across 11 typologically diverse languages, including several extremely low-resource ones. Using three NLP tasks and four open-source LLMs, we assess downstream model performance on generated versus gold-standard data. Our results show that strategic combinations of generation methods — particularly target-language demonstrations with LLM-based revisions — yield strong performance, narrowing the gap with real data to as little as 5% in some settings. We also find that smart prompting techniques can reduce the advantage of larger LLMs, highlighting efficient generation strategies for synthetic data generation in low-resource scenarios with smaller models.

The generative large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for data augmentation tasks, where text samples are paraphrased (or generated anew) and then used for downstream model fine-tuning. This is useful, especially for low-resource settings. For better augmentations, LLMs are prompted with examples (few-shot scenarios). Yet, the samples are mostly selected randomly, and a comprehensive overview of the effects of other (more ”informed”) sample selection strategies is lacking. In this work, we compare sample selection strategies existing in the few-shot learning literature and investigate their effects in LLM-based textual augmentation in a low-resource setting. We evaluate this on in-distribution and out-of-distribution model performance. Results indicate that while some ”informed” selection strategies increase the performance of models, especially for out-of-distribution data, it happens only seldom and with marginal performance increases. Unless further advances are made, a default of random sample selection remains a good option for augmentation practitioners.

The generative large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for data augmentation tasks, where text samples are LLM-paraphrased and then used for classifier fine-tuning. Previous studies have compared LLM-based augmentations with established augmentation techniques, but the results are contradictory: some report superiority of LLM-based augmentations, while other only marginal increases (and even decreases) in performance of downstream classifiers. A research that would confirm a clear cost-benefit advantage of LLMs over more established augmentation methods is largely missing. To study if (and when) is the LLM-based augmentation advantageous, we compared the effects of recent LLM augmentation methods with established ones on 6 datasets, 3 classifiers and 2 fine-tuning methods. We also varied the number of seeds and collected samples to better explore the downstream model accuracy space. Finally, we performed a cost-benefit analysis and show that LLM-based methods are worthy of deployment only when very small number of seeds is used. Moreover, in many cases, established methods lead to similar or better model accuracies.

The latest generative large language models (LLMs) have found their application in data augmentation tasks, where small numbers of text samples are LLM-paraphrased and then used to fine-tune downstream models. However, more research is needed to assess how different prompts, seed data selection strategies, filtering methods, or model settings affect the quality of paraphrased data (and downstream models). In this study, we investigate three text diversity incentive methods well established in crowdsourcing: taboo words, hints by previous outlier solutions, and chaining on previous outlier solutions. Using these incentive methods as part of instructions to LLMs augmenting text datasets, we measure their effects on generated texts’ lexical diversity and downstream model performance. We compare the effects over 5 different LLMs, 6 datasets and 2 downstream models. We show that diversity is most increased by taboo words, but downstream model performance is highest with hints.

VIGILANT (Vital IntelliGence to Investigate ILlegAl DisiNformaTion) is a three-year Horizon Europe project that will equip European Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) with advanced disinformation detection and analysis tools to investigate and prevent criminal activities linked to disinformation. These include disinformation instigating violence towards minorities, promoting false medical cures, and increasing tensions between groups causing civil unrest and violent acts. VIGILANT’s four LEAs require support for English, Spanish, Catalan, Greek, Estonian, Romanian and Russian. Therefore, multilinguality is a major challenge and we present the current status of our tools and our plans to improve their performance.

High-quality text generation capability of latest Large Language Models (LLMs) causes concerns about their misuse (e.g., in massive generation/spread of disinformation). Machine-generated text (MGT) detection is important to cope with such threats. However, it is susceptible to authorship obfuscation (AO) methods, such as paraphrasing, which can cause MGTs to evade detection. So far, this was evaluated only in monolingual settings. Thus, the susceptibility of recently proposed multilingual detectors is still unknown. We fill this gap by comprehensively benchmarking the performance of 10 well-known AO methods, attacking 37 MGT detection methods against MGTs in 11 languages (i.e., 10 × 37 × 11 = 4,070 combinations). We also evaluate the effect of data augmentation on adversarial robustness using obfuscated texts. The results indicate that all tested AO methods can cause evasion of automated detection in all tested languages, where homoglyph attacks are especially successful. However, some of the AO methods severely damaged the text, making it no longer readable or easily recognizable by humans (e.g., changed language, weird characters).

While fine-tuning of pre-trained language models generally helps to overcome the lack of labelled training samples, it also displays model performance instability. This instability mainly originates from randomness in initialisation or data shuffling. To address this, researchers either modify the training process or augment the available samples, which typically results in increased computational costs. We propose a new mitigation strategy, called **Delayed Ensemble with Noisy Interpolation (DENI)**, that leverages the strengths of ensembling, noise regularisation and model interpolation, while retaining computational efficiency. We compare DENI with 9 representative mitigation strategies across 3 models, 4 tuning strategies and 7 text classification datasets. We show that: 1) DENI outperforms the best performing mitigation strategy (Ensemble), while using only a fraction of its cost; 2) the mitigation strategies are beneficial for parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods, outperforming full fine-tuning in specific cases; and 3) combining DENI with data augmentation often leads to even more effective instability mitigation.

The emergence of generative large language models (LLMs) raises the question: what will be its impact on crowdsourcing? Traditionally, crowdsourcing has been used for acquiring solutions to a wide variety of human-intelligence tasks, including ones involving text generation, modification or evaluation. For some of these tasks, models like ChatGPT can potentially substitute human workers. In this study, we investigate whether this is the case for the task of paraphrase generation for intent classification. We apply data collection methodology of an existing crowdsourcing study (similar scale, prompts and seed data) using ChatGPT and Falcon-40B. We show that ChatGPT-created paraphrases are more diverse and lead to at least as robust models.

There is a lack of research into capabilities of recent LLMs to generate convincing text in languages other than English and into performance of detectors of machine-generated text in multilingual settings. This is also reflected in the available benchmarks which lack authentic texts in languages other than English and predominantly cover older generators. To fill this gap, we introduce MULTITuDE, a novel benchmarking dataset for multilingual machine-generated text detection comprising of 74,081 authentic and machine-generated texts in 11 languages (ar, ca, cs, de, en, es, nl, pt, ru, uk, and zh) generated by 8 multilingual LLMs. Using this benchmark, we compare the performance of zero-shot (statistical and black-box) and fine-tuned detectors. Considering the multilinguality, we evaluate 1) how these detectors generalize to unseen languages (linguistically similar as well as dissimilar) and unseen LLMs and 2) whether the detectors improve their performance when trained on multiple languages.

Fact-checkers are often hampered by the sheer amount of online content that needs to be fact-checked. NLP can help them by retrieving already existing fact-checks relevant to the content being investigated. This paper introduces a new multilingual dataset for previously fact-checked claim retrieval. We collected 28k posts in 27 languages from social media, 206k fact-checks in 39 languages written by professional fact-checkers, as well as 31k connections between these two groups. This is the most extensive and the most linguistically diverse dataset of this kind to date. We evaluated how different unsupervised methods fare on this dataset and its various dimensions. We show that evaluating such a diverse dataset has its complexities and proper care needs to be taken before interpreting the results. We also evaluated a supervised fine-tuning approach, improving upon the unsupervised method significantly.