Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14974v6
• Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 04:31:06 GMT
• Title: Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims
• Authors: David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, Hannaneh Hajishirzi
• Abstract summary: We introduce scientific claim verification, a new task to select abstracts from the research literature containing evidence that SUPPORTS or REFUTES a given scientific claim. We construct SciFact, a dataset of 1.4K expert-written scientific claims paired with evidence-containing abstracts annotated with labels and rationales. We show that our system is able to verify claims related to COVID-19 by identifying evidence from the CORD-19 corpus.
• Score: 53.29101835904273
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce scientific claim verification, a new task to select abstracts from the research literature containing evidence that SUPPORTS or REFUTES a given scientific claim, and to identify rationales justifying each decision. To study this task, we construct SciFact, a dataset of 1.4K expert-written scientific claims paired with evidence-containing abstracts annotated with labels and rationales. We develop baseline models for SciFact, and demonstrate that simple domain adaptation techniques substantially improve performance compared to models trained on Wikipedia or political news. We show that our system is able to verify claims related to COVID-19 by identifying evidence from the CORD-19 corpus. Our experiments indicate that SciFact will provide a challenging testbed for the development of new systems designed to retrieve and reason over corpora containing specialized domain knowledge. Data and code for this new task are publicly available at https://github.com/allenai/scifact. A leaderboard and COVID-19 fact-checking demo are available at https://scifact.apps.allenai.org.

Related papers

• Scientific QA System with Verifiable Answers [0.0]
  We introduce the VerifAI project, a pioneering open-source scientific question-answering system. The components of the system are (1) an Information Retrieval system combining semantic and lexical search techniques over scientific papers (Mistral 7B) and retrieved articles to generate claims with references to the articles from which it was derived, (2) a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) module using fine-tuned generative model (Mistral 7B) and retrieved articles to generate claims with references to the articles from which it was derived, and (3) a Verification engine, based on a fine-tuned DeBERTa
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T08:21:02Z)
• SciDMT: A Large-Scale Corpus for Detecting Scientific Mentions [52.35520385083425]
  We present SciDMT, an enhanced and expanded corpus for scientific mention detection. The corpus consists of two components: 1) the SciDMT main corpus, which includes 48 thousand scientific articles with over 1.8 million weakly annotated mention annotations in the format of in-text span, and 2) an evaluation set, which comprises 100 scientific articles manually annotated for evaluation purposes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T22:03:21Z)
• SciRIFF: A Resource to Enhance Language Model Instruction-Following over Scientific Literature [80.49349719239584]
  We present SciRIFF (Scientific Resource for Instruction-Following and Finetuning), a dataset of 137K instruction-following demonstrations for 54 tasks. SciRIFF is the first dataset focused on extracting and synthesizing information from research literature across a wide range of scientific fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T21:22:08Z)
• Can Large Language Models Detect Misinformation in Scientific News Reporting? [1.0344642971058586]
  This paper investigates whether it is possible to use large language models (LLMs) to detect misinformation in scientific reporting. We first present a new labeled dataset SciNews, containing 2.4k scientific news stories drawn from trusted and untrustworthy sources. We identify dimensions of scientific validity in science news articles and explore how this can be integrated into the automated detection of scientific misinformation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T04:07:00Z)
• Check-COVID: Fact-Checking COVID-19 News Claims with Scientific Evidence [6.443863980834019]
  Check-COVID contains 1, 504 expert-annotated news claims about the coronavirus paired with sentence-level evidence from scientific journal articles and veracity labels. It includes both extracted (journalist-written) and composed (annotator-written) claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T17:39:22Z)
• SciFact-Open: Towards open-domain scientific claim verification [61.288725621156864]
  We present SciFact-Open, a new test collection designed to evaluate the performance of scientific claim verification systems. We collect evidence for scientific claims by pooling and annotating the top predictions of four state-of-the-art scientific claim verification models. We find that systems developed on smaller corpora struggle to generalize to SciFact-Open, exhibiting performance drops of at least 15 F1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T05:45:00Z)
• Generating Scientific Claims for Zero-Shot Scientific Fact Checking [54.62086027306609]
  Automated scientific fact checking is difficult due to the complexity of scientific language and a lack of significant amounts of training data. We propose scientific claim generation, the task of generating one or more atomic and verifiable claims from scientific sentences. We also demonstrate its usefulness in zero-shot fact checking for biomedical claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-24T11:29:20Z)
• RerrFact: Reduced Evidence Retrieval Representations for Scientific Claim Verification [4.052777228128475]
  We propose a modular approach that sequentially carries out binary classification for every prediction subtask. We carry out two-step stance predictions that first differentiate non-relevant rationales and then identify supporting or refuting rationales for a given claim. Experimentally, our system RerrFact with no fine-tuning, simple design, and a fraction of model parameters fairs competitively on the leaderboard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-05T21:52:45Z)
• Misinformation Has High Perplexity [55.47422012881148]
  We propose to leverage the perplexity to debunk false claims in an unsupervised manner. First, we extract reliable evidence from scientific and news sources according to sentence similarity to the claims. Second, we prime a language model with the extracted evidence and finally evaluate the correctness of given claims based on the perplexity scores at debunking time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T15:13:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.