The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for mechanisms to verify the factual accuracy of their outputs. In this work, we present Factcheck-Bench, a holistic end-to-end framework for annotating and evaluating the factuality of LLM-generated responses, which encompasses a multi-stage annotation scheme designed to yield detailed labels for fact-checking and correcting not just the final prediction, but also the intermediate steps that a fact-checking system might need to take. Based on this framework, we construct an open-domain factuality benchmark in three-levels of granularity: claim, sentence, and document. We further propose a system, Factcheck-GPT, which follows our framework, and we show that it outperforms several popular LLM fact-checkers. We make our annotation tool, annotated data, benchmark, and code available at https://github.com/yuxiaw/Factcheck-GPT.

Uncovering latent values and opinions embedded in large language models (LLMs) can help identify biases and mitigate potential harm. Recently, this has been approached by prompting LLMs with survey questions and quantifying the stances in the outputs towards morally and politically charged statements. However, the stances generated by LLMs can vary greatly depending on how they are prompted, and there are many ways to argue for or against a given position. In this work, we propose to address this by analysing a large and robust dataset of 156k LLM responses to the 62 propositions of the Political Compass Test (PCT) generated by 6 LLMs using 420 prompt variations. We perform coarse-grained analysis of their generated stances and fine-grained analysis of the plain text justifications for those stances. For fine-grained analysis, we propose to identify tropes in the responses: semantically similar phrases that are recurrent and consistent across different prompts, revealing natural patterns in the text that a given LLM is prone to produce. We find that demographic features added to prompts significantly affect outcomes on the PCT, reflecting bias, as well as disparities between the results of tests when eliciting closed-form vs. open domain responses. Additionally, patterns in the plain text rationales via tropes show that similar justifications are repeatedly generated across models and prompts even with disparate stances.

Online gender-based violence has grown concomitantly with the adoption of the internet and social media. Its effects are worse in the Global majority where many users use social media in languages other than English. The scale and volume of conversations on the internet have necessitated the need for automated detection of hate speech and, more specifically, gendered abuse. There is, however, a lack of language-specific and contextual data to build such automated tools. In this paper, we present a dataset on gendered abuse in three languages- Hindi, Tamil and Indian English. The dataset comprises of tweets annotated along three questions pertaining to the experience of gender abuse, by experts who identify as women or a member of the LGBTQIA+ community in South Asia. Through this dataset, we demonstrate a participatory approach to creating datasets that drive AI systems.

The task of Stance Detection is concerned with identifying the attitudes expressed by an author towards a target of interest. This task spans a variety of domains ranging from social media opinion identification to detecting the stance for a legal claim. However, the framing of the task varies within these domains in terms of the data collection protocol, the label dictionary and the number of available annotations. Furthermore, these stance annotations are significantly imbalanced on a per-topic and inter-topic basis. These make multi-domain stance detection challenging, requiring standardization and domain adaptation. To overcome this challenge, we propose Topic Efficient StancE Detection (TESTED), consisting of a topic-guided diversity sampling technique used for creating a multi-domain data efficient training set and a contrastive objective that is used for fine-tuning a stance classifier using the produced set. We evaluate the method on an existing benchmark of 16 datasets with in-domain, i.e. all topics seen and out-of-domain, i.e. unseen topics, experiments. The results show that the method outperforms the state-of-the-art with an average of 3.5 F1 points increase in-domain and is more generalizable with an averaged 10.2 F1 on out-of-domain evaluation while using <10% of the training data. We show that our sampling technique mitigates both inter- and per-topic class imbalances. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that the contrastive learning objective allows the model for a more pronounced segmentation of samples with varying labels.

Dual use, the intentional, harmful reuse of technology and scientific artefacts, is an ill-defined problem within the context of Natural Language Processing (NLP). As large language models (LLMs) have advanced in their capabilities and become more accessible, the risk of their intentional misuse becomes more prevalent. To prevent such intentional malicious use, it is necessary for NLP researchers and practitioners to understand and mitigate the risks of their research. Hence, we present an NLP-specific definition of dual use informed by researchers and practitioners in the field. Further, we propose a checklist focusing on dual-use in NLP, that can be integrated into existing conference ethics-frameworks. The definition and checklist are created based on a survey of NLP researchers and practitioners.

Language embeds information about social, cultural, and political values people hold. Prior work has explored potentially harmful social biases encoded in Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs). However, there has been no systematic study investigating how values embedded in these models vary across cultures. In this paper, we introduce probes to study which cross-cultural values are embedded in these models, and whether they align with existing theories and cross-cultural values surveys. We find that PLMs capture differences in values across cultures, but those only weakly align with established values surveys. We discuss implications of using mis-aligned models in cross-cultural settings, as well as ways of aligning PLMs with values surveys.

The moderation of content on online platforms is usually non-transparent. On Wikipedia, however, this discussion is carried out publicly and editors are encouraged to use the content moderation policies as explanations for making moderation decisions. Currently, only a few comments explicitly mention those policies – 20% of the English ones, but as few as 2% of the German and Turkish comments. To aid in this process of understanding how content is moderated, we construct a novel multilingual dataset of Wikipedia editor discussions along with their reasoning in three languages. The dataset contains the stances of the editors (keep, delete, merge, comment), along with the stated reason, and a content moderation policy, for each edit decision. We demonstrate that stance and corresponding reason (policy) can be predicted jointly with a high degree of accuracy, adding transparency to the decision-making process. We release both our joint prediction models and the multilingual content moderation dataset for further research on automated transparent content moderation.

Understanding attitudes expressed in texts, also known as stance detection, plays an important role in systems for detecting false information online, be it misinformation (unintentionally false) or disinformation (intentionally false information). Stance detection has been framed in different ways, including (a) as a component of fact-checking, rumour detection, and detecting previously fact-checked claims, or (b) as a task in its own right. While there have been prior efforts to contrast stance detection with other related tasks such as argumentation mining and sentiment analysis, there is no existing survey on examining the relationship between stance detection and mis- and disinformation detection. Here, we aim to bridge this gap by reviewing and analysing existing work in this area, with mis- and disinformation in focus, and discussing lessons learnt and future challenges.

Stance detection concerns the classification of a writer’s viewpoint towards a target. There are different task variants, e.g., stance of a tweet vs. a full article, or stance with respect to a claim vs. an (implicit) topic. Moreover, task definitions vary, which includes the label inventory, the data collection, and the annotation protocol. All these aspects hinder cross-domain studies, as they require changes to standard domain adaptation approaches. In this paper, we perform an in-depth analysis of 16 stance detection datasets, and we explore the possibility for cross-domain learning from them. Moreover, we propose an end-to-end unsupervised framework for out-of-domain prediction of unseen, user-defined labels. In particular, we combine domain adaptation techniques such as mixture of experts and domain-adversarial training with label embeddings, and we demonstrate sizable performance gains over strong baselines, both (i) in-domain, i.e., for seen targets, and (ii) out-of-domain, i.e., for unseen targets. Finally, we perform an exhaustive analysis of the cross-domain results, and we highlight the important factors influencing the model performance.