How Entangled is Factuality and Deception in German?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.20165v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:23:13 GMT
• Title: How Entangled is Factuality and Deception in German?
• Authors: Aswathy Velutharambath, Amelie Wührl, Roman Klinger,
• Abstract summary: Research on deception detection and fact checking often conflates factual accuracy with the truthfulness of statements. The belief-based deception framework disentangles these properties by defining texts as deceptive when there is a mismatch between what people say and what they truly believe. We test the effectiveness of computational models in detecting deception using an established corpus of belief-based argumentation.
• Score: 10.790059579736276
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The statement "The earth is flat" is factually inaccurate, but if someone truly believes and argues in its favor, it is not deceptive. Research on deception detection and fact checking often conflates factual accuracy with the truthfulness of statements. This assumption makes it difficult to (a) study subtle distinctions and interactions between the two and (b) gauge their effects on downstream tasks. The belief-based deception framework disentangles these properties by defining texts as deceptive when there is a mismatch between what people say and what they truly believe. In this study, we assess if presumed patterns of deception generalize to German language texts. We test the effectiveness of computational models in detecting deception using an established corpus of belief-based argumentation. Finally, we gauge the impact of deception on the downstream task of fact checking and explore if this property confounds verification models. Surprisingly, our analysis finds no correlation with established cues of deception. Previous work claimed that computational models can outperform humans in deception detection accuracy, however, our experiments show that both traditional and state-of-the-art models struggle with the task, performing no better than random guessing. For fact checking, we find that Natural Language Inference-based verification performs worse on non-factual and deceptive content, while prompting Large Language Models for the same task is less sensitive to these properties.

Related papers

• Towards Faithful Natural Language Explanations: A Study Using Activation Patching in Large Language Models [29.67884478799914]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating persuasive Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) to justify their answers. Recent studies have proposed various methods to measure the faithfulness of NLEs, typically by inserting perturbations at the explanation or feature level. We argue that these approaches are neither comprehensive nor correctly designed according to the established definition of faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T03:45:42Z)
• Truth-value judgment in language models: belief directions are context sensitive [2.324913904215885]
  latent spaces of large language models contain directions predictive of the truth of sentences. Multiple methods recover such directions and build probes that are described as getting at a model's "knowledge" or "beliefs" We investigate this phenomenon, looking closely at the impact of context on the probes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T16:52:57Z)
• Can Deception Detection Go Deeper? Dataset, Evaluation, and Benchmark for Deception Reasoning [48.11096630736294]
  We extend deception detection to deception reasoning. Specifically, we provide potential lies and basic facts and then analyze why this sentence may be a lie. This paper presents our initial attempts at this task, including constructing a dataset and defining evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T02:52:54Z)
• BaRDa: A Belief and Reasoning Dataset that Separates Factual Accuracy and Reasoning Ability [35.743903178120895]
  BaRDa dataset contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid) We find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T18:55:43Z)
• Cognitive Dissonance: Why Do Language Model Outputs Disagree with Internal Representations of Truthfulness? [53.98071556805525]
  Neural language models (LMs) can be used to evaluate the truth of factual statements. They can be queried for statement probabilities, or probed for internal representations of truthfulness. Past work has found that these two procedures sometimes disagree, and that probes tend to be more accurate than LM outputs. This has led some researchers to conclude that LMs "lie" or otherwise encode non-cooperative communicative intents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T18:59:14Z)
• Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision [72.95136739040676]
  Existing techniques for training language models can be misaligned with the truth. We propose directly finding latent knowledge inside the internal activations of a language model in a purely unsupervised way. We show that despite using no supervision and no model outputs, our method can recover diverse knowledge represented in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-07T18:17:56Z)
• 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)
• On the (Un-)Avoidability of Adversarial Examples [4.822598110892847]
  adversarial examples in deep learning models have caused substantial concern over their reliability. We provide a framework for determining whether a model's label change under small perturbation is justified. We prove that our adaptive data-augmentation maintains consistency of 1-nearest neighbor classification under deterministic labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T21:35:25Z)
• 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)
• On the Robustness of Language Encoders against Grammatical Errors [66.05648604987479]
  We collect real grammatical errors from non-native speakers and conduct adversarial attacks to simulate these errors on clean text data. Results confirm that the performance of all tested models is affected but the degree of impact varies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-12T11:01:44Z)

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.