Political debates are often analyzed through Argument Mining (AM) to investigate the key arguments that drive them. However, political arguments are rarely interpretable from argumentative spans alone, as claims and premises generally depend on the entities (e.g., people, events, locations, parties) they mention. Existing AM resources and methods typically annotate argumentative spans and roles, but do not provide a paired debate-entity layer for asking which Debate Named Entities (DNE), e.g., actors and events, are invoked within debates. In this work, we address these data and methodological gaps by (i) introducing DNE-ElecDeb, an entity-enriched version of the USElecDeb dataset that adds DNEs in both argumentative and non-argumentative spans and defines Debate Named Entity Recognition (DNER) as the task of detecting DNEs, and (ii) proposing Joint Argument and Entity Tagging (JAET), a generative framework that fine-tunes decoder-only LLMs to insert inline argument and entity tags into debate turns while preserving the original transcript. Under BIO-tagging evaluation, JAET improves relative F1 on the joint AM+DNER task by +27.3%, resp. +41.9%, under the untyped, resp. typed setting over the strongest sequential AM-DNER pipelines, demonstrating that such gains cannot be recovered by composing two independent modules. Notably, similar margins replicate on Persuasive Essays (+26.6%, resp. +52.7%), showing effective generalization to domains orthogonal to political debates. By unifying argumentative and entity-level representations within a single view, our contributions pave the way for richer political debates understanding.

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.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) have reached human-like fluency and coherence, distinguishing machine-generated text (MGT) from human-written content becomes increasingly difficult. While early efforts in MGT detection have focused on binary classification, the growing landscape and diversity of LLMs require a more fine-grained yet challenging authorship attribution (AA), i.e., being able to identify the precise generator (LLM or human) behind a text. However, AA remains nowadays confined to a monolingual setting, with English being the most investigated one, overlooking the multilingual nature and usage of modern LLMs. In this work, we introduce the problem of Multilingual Authorship Attribution, which involves attributing texts to human or multiple LLM generators across diverse languages. Focusing on 18 languages—covering multiple families and writing scripts—and 8 generators (7 LLMs and the human-authored class), we investigate the multilingual suitability of monolingual AA methods in terms of their cross-lingual transferability, and the impact of generators on attribution performance. Our results reveal that while certain monolingual AA methods can be adapted to multilingual settings, significant limitations and challenges remain, particularly in transferring across diverse language families, underscoring the complexity of multilingual AA and the need for more robust approaches to better match real-world scenarios.

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.

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.

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.