Claim Extraction for Fact-Checking: Data, Models, and Automated Metrics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04955v1
• Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 14:20:45 GMT
• Title: Claim Extraction for Fact-Checking: Data, Models, and Automated Metrics
• Authors: Herbert Ullrich, Tomáš Mlynář, Jan Drchal,
• Abstract summary: We release the FEVERFact dataset, with 17K atomic factual claims extracted from 4K contextualised Wikipedia sentences. For each metric, we implement a scale using a reduction to an already-explored NLP task. We validate our metrics against human grading of generic claims, to see that the model ranking on $F_fact$, our hardest metric, did not change.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: In this paper, we explore the problem of Claim Extraction using one-to-many text generation methods, comparing LLMs, small summarization models finetuned for the task, and a previous NER-centric baseline QACG. As the current publications on Claim Extraction, Fact Extraction, Claim Generation and Check-worthy Claim Detection are quite scattered in their means and terminology, we compile their common objectives, releasing the FEVERFact dataset, with 17K atomic factual claims extracted from 4K contextualised Wikipedia sentences, adapted from the original FEVER. We compile the known objectives into an Evaluation framework of: Atomicity, Fluency, Decontextualization, Faithfulness checked for each generated claim separately, and Focus and Coverage measured against the full set of predicted claims for a single input. For each metric, we implement a scale using a reduction to an already-explored NLP task. We validate our metrics against human grading of generic claims, to see that the model ranking on $F_{fact}$, our hardest metric, did not change and the evaluation framework approximates human grading very closely in terms of $F_1$ and RMSE.

Related papers

• Towards Effective Extraction and Evaluation of Factual Claims [1.8262547855491458]
  A common strategy for fact-checking long-form content generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is extracting simple claims that can be verified independently. We propose a framework for evaluating claim extraction in the context of fact-checking along with automated, scalable, and replicable methods for applying this framework. We also introduce Claimify, an LLM-based claim extraction method, and demonstrate that it outperforms existing methods under our evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-15T16:58:05Z)
• FactLens: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Fact Verification [6.814173254027381]
  We advocate for a shift toward fine-grained verification, where complex claims are broken down into smaller sub-claims for individual verification. We introduce FactLens, a benchmark for evaluating fine-grained fact verification, with metrics and automated evaluators of sub-claim quality. Our results show alignment between automated FactLens evaluators and human judgments, and we discuss the impact of sub-claim characteristics on the overall verification performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T21:26:57Z)
• Atomic Fact Decomposition Helps Attributed Question Answering [30.75332718824254]
  Attributed Question Answering (AQA) aims to provide both a trustworthy answer and a reliable attribution report for a question. This paper proposes an Atomic fact decomposition-based Retrieval and Editing framework. It decomposes the generated long-form answers into molecular clauses and atomic facts by the instruction-tuned LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T05:25:54Z)
• Localizing Factual Inconsistencies in Attributable Text Generation [91.981439746404]
  We introduce QASemConsistency, a new formalism for localizing factual inconsistencies in attributable text generation. We first demonstrate the effectiveness of the QASemConsistency methodology for human annotation. We then implement several methods for automatically detecting localized factual inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T22:53:48Z)
• FENICE: Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction [85.26780391682894]
  We propose Factuality Evaluation of summarization based on Natural language Inference and Claim Extraction (FENICE) FENICE leverages an NLI-based alignment between information in the source document and a set of atomic facts, referred to as claims, extracted from the summary. Our metric sets a new state of the art on AGGREFACT, the de-facto benchmark for factuality evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T17:57:18Z)
• Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics [58.438648377314436]
  A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T12:36:23Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)
• WiCE: Real-World Entailment for Claims in Wikipedia [63.234352061821625]
  We propose WiCE, a new fine-grained textual entailment dataset built on natural claim and evidence pairs extracted from Wikipedia. In addition to standard claim-level entailment, WiCE provides entailment judgments over sub-sentence units of the claim. We show that real claims in our dataset involve challenging verification and retrieval problems that existing models fail to address.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-02T17:45:32Z)
• BUMP: A Benchmark of Unfaithful Minimal Pairs for Meta-Evaluation of Faithfulness Metrics [70.52570641514146]
  We present a benchmark of unfaithful minimal pairs (BUMP) BUMP is a dataset of 889 human-written, minimally different summary pairs. Unlike non-pair-based datasets, BUMP can be used to measure the consistency of metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T02:17:30Z)
• Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics [17.677637487977208]
  Modern summarization models generate highly fluent but often factually unreliable outputs. Due to the lack of common benchmarks, metrics attempting to measure the factuality of automatically generated summaries cannot be compared. We devise a typology of factual errors and use it to collect human annotations of generated summaries from state-of-the-art summarization systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-27T17:28:07Z)

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.