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.

The manifestation and effect of bias in news reporting have been central topics in the social sciences for decades, and have received increasing attention in the NLP community recently. While NLP can help to scale up analyses or contribute automatic procedures to investigate the impact of biased news in society, we argue that methodologies that are currently dominant fall short of capturing the complex questions and effects addressed in theoretical media studies. This is problematic because it diminishes the validity and safety of the resulting tools and applications. Here, we review and critically compare task formulations, methods and evaluation schemes in the social sciences and NLP. We discuss open questions and suggest possible directions to close identified gaps between theory and predictive models, and their evaluation. These include model transparency, considering document-external information, and cross-document reasoning.

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.