Argument Mining (AM) aims to identify and interpret argumentative structures in unstructured text, with Argument Component Classification (ACC) as a core task. Despite significant advances, most ACC approaches rely on manually pre-segmented inputs, an assumption that rarely holds in practice due to the high cost and effort of expert human annotation, creating a major bottleneck for scalable AM systems. In this work, we focus on the foundation Argument Component Segmentation (ACS) task by proposing a fine-grained, paired-tag annotation schema that explicitly distinguishes between relevant and surrounding content, thus overcoming the limitations of previous single-separator approaches. Leveraging small and open Large Language Models (LLMs) fine-tuned on our paired-tag annotation schema, we can perform ACS with quality comparable to human expert annotators across multiple benchmark datasets. We further validate our approach on the downstream ACC task, showing that automated segmentation with fine-tuned LLMs yields ACC performances comparable to pipelines relying on human annotations. These findings suggest that reliable automated ACS via LLMs is both feasible and effective, paving the way for more scalable AM pipelines without human intervention.

Morality serves as the foundation of societal structure, guiding legal systems, shaping cultural values, and influencing individual self-perception. With the rise and pervasiveness of generative AI tools, and particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), concerns arise regarding how these tools capture and potentially alter moral dimensions through machine-generated text manipulation. Based on the Moral Foundation Theory, our work investigates this topic by analyzing the behavior of 12 LLMs among the most widely used Open and uncensored (i.e., ”abliterated”) models, and leveraging human-annotated datasets used in moral-related analysis. Results have shown varying levels of alteration of moral expressions depending on the type of text modification task and moral-related conditioning prompt.

Open Large Language Models (OLLMs) are increasingly leveraged in generative AI applications, posing new challenges for detecting their outputs. We propose OpenTuringBench, a new benchmark based on OLLMs, designed to train and evaluate machine-generated text detectors on the Turing Test and Authorship Attribution problems. OpenTuringBench focuses on a representative set of OLLMs, and features a number of challenging evaluation tasks, including human/machine-manipulated texts, out-of-domain texts, and texts from previously unseen models. We also provide OTBDetector, a contrastive learning framework to detect and attribute OLLM-based machine-generated texts. Results highlight the relevance and varying degrees of difficulty of the OpenTuringBench tasks, with our detector achieving remarkable capabilities across the various tasks and outperforming most existing detectors.

Verbs form the backbone of language, providing the structure and meaning to sentences. Yet, their intricate semantic nuances pose a longstanding challenge. Understanding verb relations through the concept of lexical entailment is crucial for comprehending sentence meanings and grasping verb dynamics. This work investigates the capabilities of eight Large Language Models in recognizing lexical entailment relations among verbs through differently devised prompting strategies and zero-/few-shot settings over verb pairs from two lexical databases, namely WordNet and HyperLex. Our findings unveil that the models can tackle the lexical entailment recognition task with moderately good performance, although at varying degree of effectiveness and under different conditions. Also, utilizing few-shot prompting can enhance the models’ performance. However, perfectly solving the task arises as an unmet challenge for all examined LLMs, which raises an emergence for further research developments on this topic.