Grounding Fallacies Misrepresenting Scientific Publications in Evidence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12812v1
• Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 03:16:26 GMT
• Title: Grounding Fallacies Misrepresenting Scientific Publications in Evidence
• Authors: Max Glockner, Yufang Hou, Preslav Nakov, Iryna Gurevych,
• Abstract summary: We introduce MissciPlus, an extension of the fallacy detection dataset Missci. MissciPlus builds on Missci by grounding the applied fallacies in real-world passages from misrepresented studies. MissciPlus is the first logical fallacy dataset which pairs the real-world misrepresented evidence with incorrect claims.
• Score: 84.32990746227385
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Health-related misinformation claims often falsely cite a credible biomedical publication as evidence, which superficially appears to support the false claim. The publication does not really support the claim, but a reader could believe it thanks to the use of logical fallacies. Here, we aim to detect and to highlight such fallacies, which requires carefully assessing the exact content of the misrepresented publications. To achieve this, we introduce MissciPlus, an extension of the fallacy detection dataset Missci. MissciPlus builds on Missci by grounding the applied fallacies in real-world passages from misrepresented studies. This creates a realistic test-bed for detecting and verbalizing these fallacies under real-world input conditions, and enables novel passage-retrieval tasks. MissciPlus is the first logical fallacy dataset which pairs the real-world misrepresented evidence with incorrect claims, identical to the input to evidence-based fact-checking models. With MissciPlus, we i) benchmark retrieval models in identifying passages that support claims only when fallacies are applied, ii) evaluate how well LLMs articulate fallacious reasoning from misrepresented scientific passages, and iii) assess the effectiveness of fact-checking models in refuting claims that misrepresent biomedical research. Our findings show that current fact-checking models struggle to use relevant passages from misrepresented publications to refute misinformation. Moreover, these passages can mislead LLMs into accepting false claims as true.

Related papers

• Missci: Reconstructing Fallacies in Misrepresented Science [84.32990746227385]
  Health-related misinformation on social networks can lead to poor decision-making and real-world dangers. Missci is a novel argumentation theoretical model for fallacious reasoning. We present Missci as a dataset to test the critical reasoning abilities of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T12:11:10Z)
• Missing Counter-Evidence Renders NLP Fact-Checking Unrealistic for Misinformation [67.69725605939315]
  Misinformation emerges in times of uncertainty when credible information is limited. This is challenging for NLP-based fact-checking as it relies on counter-evidence, which may not yet be available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T09:40:48Z)
• Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims [64.81832149826035]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-14T00:40:57Z)
• Automatic Fake News Detection: Are Models Learning to Reason? [9.143551270841858]
  We investigate the relationship and importance of both claim and evidence. Surprisingly, we find on political fact checking datasets that most often the highest effectiveness is obtained by utilizing only the evidence. This highlights an important problem in what constitutes evidence in existing approaches for automatic fake news detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-17T09:34:03Z)
• 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)
• 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.