Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.06938v1
• Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 00:40:57 GMT
• Title: Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims
• Authors: Jifan Chen, Aniruddh Sriram, Eunsol Choi, Greg Durrett
• Abstract summary: We focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim. We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims. We show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers.
• Score: 64.81832149826035
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Verifying complex political claims is a challenging task, especially when politicians use various tactics to subtly misrepresent the facts. Automatic fact-checking systems fall short here, and their predictions like "half-true" are not very useful in isolation, since we have no idea which parts of the claim are true and which are not. In this work, we focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim. We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims. Given a claim and its verification paragraph written by fact-checkers, our trained annotators write subquestions covering both explicit propositions of the original claim and its implicit facets, such as asking about additional political context that changes our view of the claim's veracity. We study whether state-of-the-art models can generate such subquestions, showing that these models generate reasonable questions to ask, but predicting the comprehensive set of subquestions from the original claim without evidence remains challenging. We further show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers, suggesting that they can be useful pieces of a fact-checking pipeline.

Related papers

• Contrastive Learning to Improve Retrieval for Real-world Fact Checking [84.57583869042791]
  We present Contrastive Fact-Checking Reranker (CFR), an improved retriever for fact-checking complex claims. We leverage the AVeriTeC dataset, which annotates subquestions for claims with human written answers from evidence documents. We find a 6% improvement in veracity classification accuracy on the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:09:50Z)
• Navigating the Noisy Crowd: Finding Key Information for Claim Verification [19.769771741059408]
  We propose EACon, a framework designed to find key information within evidence and verify each aspect of a claim separately. Eccon finds keywords from the claim and employs fuzzy matching to select relevant keywords for each raw evidence piece. Eccon deconstructs the original claim into subclaims, which are then verified against both abstracted and raw evidence individually.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T09:24:10Z)
• QACHECK: A Demonstration System for Question-Guided Multi-Hop Fact-Checking [68.06355980166053]
  We propose the Question-guided Multi-hop Fact-Checking (QACHECK) system. It guides the model's reasoning process by asking a series of questions critical for verifying a claim. It provides the source of evidence supporting each question, fostering a transparent, explainable, and user-friendly fact-checking process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T15:51:53Z)
• AVeriTeC: A Dataset for Real-world Claim Verification with Evidence from the Web [20.576644330553744]
  We introduce AVeriTeC, a new dataset of 4,568 real-world claims covering fact-checks by 50 different organizations. Each claim is annotated with question-answer pairs supported by evidence available online, as well as textual justifications explaining how the evidence combines to produce a verdict.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T15:17:18Z)
• Complex Claim Verification with Evidence Retrieved in the Wild [73.19998942259073]
  We present the first fully automated pipeline to check real-world claims by retrieving raw evidence from the web. Our pipeline includes five components: claim decomposition, raw document retrieval, fine-grained evidence retrieval, claim-focused summarization, and veracity judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T17:49:19Z)
• FaVIQ: FAct Verification from Information-seeking Questions [77.7067957445298]
  We construct a large-scale fact verification dataset called FaVIQ using information-seeking questions posed by real users. Our claims are verified to be natural, contain little lexical bias, and require a complete understanding of the evidence for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T17:31:44Z)
• AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence [57.7091560922174]
  We present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. We analyze disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:40:08Z)
• Hierarchical Evidence Set Modeling for Automated Fact Extraction and Verification [5.836068916903788]
  Hierarchical Evidence Set Modeling (HESM) is a framework to extract evidence sets and verify a claim to be supported, refuted or not enough info. Our experimental results show that HESM outperforms 7 state-of-the-art methods for fact extraction and claim verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-10T22:27:17Z)

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.