Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as sources of health advice, raising urgent concerns about reliability, safety, and personalization. While prior work has studied health advice conflicts, these efforts typically ignore patient context and treat contradictions as universal. In this paper, we propose the task of contextualized divergence detection, which frames divergence not only as strict contradictions but also as context-dependent mismatches. To support this task, we introduce a novel dataset of 10,545 samples that combines user profiles, consumer medication guideline documents, and advice statements, with divergences synthetically generated across four categories: direct, conditional, temporal, and sub-typical. We benchmark a set of LLM-based inference approaches, including prompt-based inference, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), supervised fine-tuning, and agent-based reasoning.

We observe that relevance-filtered RAG achieves the highest accuracy and robustness for large models, while agent-based reasoning improves interpretability at the cost of accuracy, and supervised fine-tuning is essential for smaller models. A qualitative error analysis highlights recurring challenges such as hedging language, temporal mismatches, and profile-advisory inconsistencies. This work provides the first dataset and systematic evaluation of contextualized divergence detection in health advice, paving the way toward safer, more personalized interactions with LLMs.

Event argument extraction identifies arguments for predefined event roles in text. Existing work evaluates this task with exact match (EM), where predicted arguments must align exactly with annotated spans. While suitable for span-based models, this approach falls short for large language models (LLMs), which often generate diverse yet semantically accurate arguments. EM severely underestimates performance by disregarding valid variations. Furthermore, EM evaluation fails to capture implicit arguments (unstated but inferable) and scattered arguments (distributed across a document). These limitations underscore the need for an evaluation framework that better captures models’ actual performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce REGen, a Reliable Evaluation framework for Generative event argument extraction. REGen combines the strengths of exact, relaxed, and LLM-based matching to better align with human judgment. Experiments on six datasets show that REGen reveals an average performance gain of +23.93 F1 over EM, reflecting capabilities overlooked by prior evaluation. Human validation further confirms REGen’s effectiveness, achieving 87.67% alignment with human assessments of argument correctness.

Prior works formulate the extraction of event-specific arguments as a span extraction problem, where event arguments are explicit — i.e. assumed to be contiguous spans of text in a document. In this study, we revisit this definition of Event Extraction (EE) by introducing two key argument types that cannot be modeled by existing EE frameworks. First, implicit arguments are event arguments which are not explicitly mentioned in the text, but can be inferred through context. Second, scattered arguments are event arguments that are composed of information scattered throughout the text. These two argument types are crucial to elicit the full breadth of information required for proper event modeling.To support the extraction of explicit, implicit, and scattered arguments, we develop a novel dataset, DiscourseEE, which includes 7,464 argument annotations from online health discourse. Notably, 51.2% of the arguments are implicit, and 17.4% are scattered, making DiscourseEE a unique corpus for complex event extraction. Additionally, we formulate argument extraction as a text generation problem to facilitate the extraction of complex argument types. We provide a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art models and highlight critical open challenges in generative event extraction. Our data and codebase are available at https://omar-sharif03.github.io/DiscourseEE.

Despite being the seventh most widely spoken language in the world, Bengali has received much less attention in machine translation literature due to being low in resources. Most publicly available parallel corpora for Bengali are not large enough; and have rather poor quality, mostly because of incorrect sentence alignments resulting from erroneous sentence segmentation, and also because of a high volume of noise present in them. In this work, we build a customized sentence segmenter for Bengali and propose two novel methods for parallel corpus creation on low-resource setups: aligner ensembling and batch filtering. With the segmenter and the two methods combined, we compile a high-quality Bengali-English parallel corpus comprising of 2.75 million sentence pairs, more than 2 million of which were not available before. Training on neural models, we achieve an improvement of more than 9 BLEU score over previous approaches to Bengali-English machine translation. We also evaluate on a new test set of 1000 pairs made with extensive quality control. We release the segmenter, parallel corpus, and the evaluation set, thus elevating Bengali from its low-resource status. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ever large scale study on Bengali-English machine translation. We believe our study will pave the way for future research on Bengali-English machine translation as well as other low-resource languages. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/csebuetnlp/banglanmt.