Large language models such as ChatGPT exhibit striking political biases. If users query them about political information, they often take a normative stance. To overcome this, we align LLMs with diverse political viewpoints from 100,000 comments written by candidates running for national parliament in Switzerland. Models aligned with this data can generate more accurate political viewpoints from Swiss parties, compared to commercial models such as ChatGPT. We also propose a procedure to generate balanced overviews summarizing multiple viewpoints using such models. The replication package contains all code and data.

With the rise of generative AI, automated fact-checking methods to combat misinformation are becoming more and more important. However, factual claim detection, the first step in a fact-checking pipeline, suffers from two key issues that limit its scalability and generalizability: (1) inconsistency in definitions of the task and what a claim is, and (2) the high cost of manual annotation. To address (1), we review the definitions in related work and propose a unifying definition of factual claims that focuses on verifiability. To address (2), we introduce AFaCTA (Automatic Factual Claim deTection Annotator), a novel framework that assists in the annotation of factual claims with the help of large language models (LLMs). AFaCTA calibrates its annotation confidence with consistency along three predefined reasoning paths. Extensive evaluation and experiments in the domain of political speech reveal that AFaCTA can efficiently assist experts in annotating factual claims and training high-quality classifiers, and can work with or without expert supervision. Our analyses also result in PoliClaim, a comprehensive claim detection dataset spanning diverse political topics.

We present the Legal Passage Retrieval Dataset, LePaRD. LePaRD contains millions of examples of U.S. federal judges citing precedent in context. The dataset aims to facilitate work on legal passage retrieval, a challenging practice-oriented legal retrieval and reasoning task. Legal passage retrieval seeks to predict relevant passages from precedential court decisions given the context of a legal argument. We extensively evaluate various approaches on LePaRD, and find that classification-based retrieval appears to work best. Our best models only achieve a recall of 59% when trained on data corresponding to the 10,000 most-cited passages, underscoring the difficulty of legal passage retrieval. By publishing LePaRD, we provide a large-scale and high quality resource to foster further research on legal passage retrieval. We hope that research on this practice-oriented NLP task will help expand access to justice by reducing the burden associated with legal research via computational assistance. Warning: Extracts from judicial opinions may contain offensive language.

To transition to a green economy, environmental claims made by companies must be reliable, comparable, and verifiable. To analyze such claims at scale, automated methods are needed to detect them in the first place. However, there exist no datasets or models for this. Thus, this paper introduces the task of environmental claim detection. To accompany the task, we release an expert-annotated dataset and models trained on this dataset. We preview one potential application of such models: We detect environmental claims made in quarterly earning calls and find that the number of environmental claims has steadily increased since the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Legal practice is intrinsically rooted in the fabric of language, yet legal practitioners and scholars have been slow to adopt tools from natural language processing (NLP). At the same time, the legal system is experiencing an access to justice crisis, which could be partially alleviated with NLP. In this position paper, we argue that the slow uptake of NLP in legal practice is exacerbated by a disconnect between the needs of the legal community and the focus of NLP researchers. In a review of recent trends in the legal NLP literature, we find limited overlap between the legal NLP community and legal academia. Our interpretation is that some of the most popular legal NLP tasks fail to address the needs of legal practitioners. We discuss examples of legal NLP tasks that promise to bridge disciplinary disconnects and highlight interesting areas for legal NLP research that remain underexplored.

Topic models help us make sense of large text collections. Automatically evaluating their output and determining the optimal number of topics are both longstanding challenges, with no effective automated solutions to date. This paper proposes using large language models (LLMs) for these tasks. We find that LLMs appropriately assess the resulting topics, correlating more strongly with human judgments than existing automated metrics. However, the setup of the evaluation task is crucial — LLMs perform better on coherence ratings of word sets than on intrustion detection. We find that LLMs can also assist us in guiding us towards a reasonable number of topics. In actual applications, topic models are typically used to answer a research question related to a collection of texts. We can incorporate this research question in the prompt to the LLM, which helps estimating the optimal number of topics.

In the face of climate change, are companies really taking substantial steps toward more sustainable operations? A comprehensive answer lies in the dense, information-rich landscape of corporate sustainability reports. However, the sheer volume and complexity of these reports make human analysis very costly. Therefore, only a few entities worldwide have the resources to analyze these reports at scale, which leads to a lack of transparency in sustainability reporting. Empowering stakeholders with LLM-based automatic analysis tools can be a promising way to democratize sustainability report analysis. However, developing such tools is challenging due to (1) the hallucination of LLMs and (2) the inefficiency of bringing domain experts into the AI development loop. In this paper, we introduce ChatReport, a novel LLM-based system to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports, addressing existing challenges by (1) making the answers traceable to reduce the harm of hallucination and (2) actively involving domain experts in the development loop. We make our methodology, annotated datasets, and generated analyses of 1015 reports publicly available. Video Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5AzaKzPE4M Github: https://github.com/EdisonNi-hku/chatreport Live web app: reports.chatclimate.ai

This paper shows how to use large-scale pretrained language models to extract character roles from narrative texts without domain-specific training data. Queried with a zero-shot question-answering prompt, GPT-3 can identify the hero, villain, and victim in diverse domains: newspaper articles, movie plot summaries, and political speeches.

In Automated Claim Verification, we retrieve evidence from a knowledge base to determine the veracity of a claim. Intuitively, the retrieval of the correct evidence plays a crucial role in this process. Often, evidence selection is tackled as a pairwise sentence classification task, i.e., we train a model to predict for each sentence individually whether it is evidence for a claim. In this work, we fine-tune document level transformers to extract all evidence from a Wikipedia document at once. We show that this approach performs better than a comparable model classifying sentences individually on all relevant evidence selection metrics in FEVER. Our complete pipeline building on this evidence selection procedure produces a new state-of-the-art result on FEVER, a popular claim verification benchmark.

In the following, we describe our system developed for the Semeval2019 Task 8. We fine-tuned a BERT checkpoint on the qatar living forum dump and used this checkpoint to train a number of models. Our hand-in for subtask A consists of a fine-tuned classifier from this BERT checkpoint. For subtask B, we first have a classifier deciding whether a comment is factual or non-factual. If it is factual, we retrieve intra-forum evidence and using this evidence, have a classifier deciding the comment’s veracity. We trained this classifier on ratings which we crawled from qatarliving.com

This paper contains our system description for the second Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) challenge. We propose a two-staged sentence selection strategy to account for examples in the dataset where evidence is not only conditioned on the claim, but also on previously retrieved evidence. We use a publicly available document retrieval module and have fine-tuned BERT checkpoints for sentence se- lection and as the entailment classifier. We report a FEVER score of 68.46% on the blind testset.