Gisela Vallejo


2024

pdf bib
AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence
Max Glockner | Ieva Staliūnaitė | James Thorne | Gisela Vallejo | Andreas Vlachos | Iryna Gurevych
Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Volume 12

Automated fact-checking systems verify claims against evidence to predict their veracity. In real-world scenarios, the retrieved evidence may not unambiguously support or refute the claim and yield conflicting but valid interpretations. Existing fact-checking datasets assume that the models developed with them predict a single veracity label for each claim, thus discouraging the handling of such ambiguity. To address this issue we present AmbiFC,1 a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. It contains fine-grained evidence annotations of 50k passages from 5k Wikipedia pages. We analyze the disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC, observing a strong correlation of annotator disagreement with linguistic phenomena such as underspecification and probabilistic reasoning. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels, and find that a pipeline that learns the label distribution for sentence-level evidence selection and veracity prediction yields the best performance. We compare models trained on different subsets of AmbiFC and show that models trained on the ambiguous instances perform better when faced with the identified linguistic phenomena.

2023

pdf bib
Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 4: Student Research Workshop)
Vishakh Padmakumar | Gisela Vallejo | Yao Fu
Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 4: Student Research Workshop)

2022

pdf bib
Evaluating the Examiner: The Perils of Pearson Correlation for Validating Text Similarity Metrics
Gisela Vallejo | Timothy Baldwin | Lea Frermann
Proceedings of the 20th Annual Workshop of the Australasian Language Technology Association

In recent years, researchers have developed question-answering based approaches to automatically evaluate system summaries, reporting improved validity compared to word overlap-based metrics like ROUGE, in terms of correlation with human ratings of criteria including fluency and hallucination. In this paper, we take a closer look at one particular metric, QuestEval, and ask whether: (1) it can serve as a more general metric for long document similarity assessment; and (2) a single correlation score between metric scores and human ratings, as the currently standard approach, is sufficient for metric validation. We find that correlation scores can be misleading, and that score distributions and outliers should be taken into account. With these caveats in mind, QuestEval can be a promising candidate for long document similarity assessment.