In high-stakes domains like legal question-answering, the accuracy and trustworthiness of generative AI systems are of paramount importance. This work presents a comprehensive benchmark of various methods to assess the groundedness of AI-generated responses, aiming to significantly enhance their reliability. Our experiments include similarity-based metrics and natural language inference models to evaluate whether responses are well-founded in the given contexts. We also explore different prompting strategies for large language models to improve the detection of ungrounded responses. We validated the effectiveness of these methods using a newly created grounding classification corpus, designed specifically for legal queries and corresponding responses from retrieval-augmented prompting, focusing on their alignment with source material. Our results indicate potential in groundedness classification of generated responses, with the best method achieving a macro-F1 score of 0.8. Additionally, we evaluated the methods in terms of their latency to determine their suitability for real-world applications, as this step typically follows the generation process. This capability is essential for processes that may trigger additional manual verification or automated response regeneration. In summary, this study demonstrates the potential of various detection methods to improve the trustworthiness of generative AI in legal settings.

Computational Argumentation in general and Argument Mining in particular are important research fields. In previous works, many of the challenges to automatically extract and to some degree reason over natural language arguments were addressed. The tools to extract argument units are increasingly available and further open problems can be addressed. In this work, we are presenting the task of Aspect-Based Argument Mining (ABAM), with the essential subtasks of Aspect Term Extraction (ATE) and Nested Segmentation (NS). At the first instance, we create and release an annotated corpus with aspect information on the token-level. We consider aspects as the main point(s) argument units are addressing. This information is important for further downstream tasks such as argument ranking, argument summarization and generation, as well as the search for counter-arguments on the aspect-level. We present several experiments using state-of-the-art supervised architectures and demonstrate their performance for both of the subtasks. The annotated benchmark is available at https://github.com/trtm/ABAM.

The performance of a Part-of-speech (POS) tagger is highly dependent on the domain of the processed text, and for many domains there is no or only very little training data available. This work addresses the problem of POS tagging noisy user-generated text using a neural network. We propose an architecture that trains an out-of-domain model on a large newswire corpus, and transfers those weights by using them as a prior for a model trained on the target domain (a data-set of German Tweets) for which there is very little annotations available. The neural network has a standard bidirectional LSTM at its core. However, we find it crucial to also encode a set of task-specific features, and to obtain reliable (source-domain and target-domain) word representations. Experiments with different regularization techniques such as early stopping, dropout and fine-tuning the domain adaptation prior weights are conducted. Our best model uses external weights from the out-of-domain model, as well as feature embeddings, pre-trained word and sub-word embeddings and achieves a tagging accuracy of slightly over 90%, improving on the previous state of the art for this task.