This position paper argues that annotation disagreement in Natural Language Inference (NLI) is not mere noise but often reflects meaningful variation, especially when triggered by ambiguity in the premise or hypothesis. While underspecified guidelines and annotator behavior contribute to variation, content-based ambiguity provides a process-independent signal of divergent human perspectives. We call for a shift toward ambiguity-aware NLI that first identifies ambiguous input pairs, classifies their types, and only then proceeds to inference. To support this shift, we present a framework that incorporates ambiguity detection and classification prior to inference. We also introduce a unified taxonomy that synthesizes existing taxonomies, illustrates key subtypes with examples, and motivates targeted detection methods that better align models with human interpretation. Although current resources lack datasets explicitly annotated for ambiguity and subtypes, this gap presents an opportunity: by developing new annotated resources and exploring unsupervised approaches to ambiguity detection, we enable more robust, explainable, and human-aligned NLI systems.

With the advent of social media networks and the vast amount of information circulating through them, automatic fact verification is an essential component to prevent the spread of misinformation. It is even more useful to have fact verification systems that provide explanations along with their classifications to ensure accurate predictions. To address both of these requirements, we implement AMREx, an Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR)-based veracity prediction and explanation system for fact verification using a combination of Smatch, an AMR evaluation metric to measure meaning containment and textual similarity, and demonstrate its effectiveness in producing partially explainable justifications using two community standard fact verification datasets, FEVER and AVeriTeC. AMREx surpasses the AVeriTec baseline accuracy showing the effectiveness of our approach for real-world claim verification. It follows an interpretable pipeline and returns an explainable AMR node mapping to clarify the system’s veracity predictions when applicable. We further demonstrate that AMREx output can be used to prompt LLMs to generate natural-language explanations using the AMR mappings as a guide to lessen the probability of hallucinations.

The unchecked spread of digital information, combined with increasing political polarization and the tendency of individuals to isolate themselves from opposing political viewpoints opposing views, has driven researchers to develop systems for automatically detecting political bias in media. This trend has been further fueled by discussions on social media. We explore methods for categorizing bias in US news articles, comparing rule-based and deep learning approaches. The study highlights the sensitivity of modern self-learning systems to unconstrained data ingestion, while reconsidering the strengths of traditional rule-based systems. Applying both models to left-leaning (CNN) and right-leaning (FOX) News articles, we assess their effectiveness on data beyond the original training and test sets. This analysis highlights each model’s accuracy, offers a framework for exploring deep-learning explainability, and sheds light on political bias in US news media. We contrast the opaque architecture of a deep learning model with the transparency of a linguistically informed rule-based model, showing that the rule-based model performs consistently across different data conditions and offers greater transparency, whereas the deep learning model is dependent on the training set and struggles with unseen data.