Retrieval-enhanced methods have become a primary approach in fact verification (FV); it requires reasoning over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to verify the integrity of a claim. To retrieve evidence, existing work often employs off-the-shelf retrieval models whose design is based on the probability ranking principle. We argue that, rather than relevance, for FV we need to focus on the utility that a claim verifier derives from the retrieved evidence. We introduce the feedback-based evidence retriever (FER) that optimizes the evidence retrieval process by incorporating feedback from the claim verifier. As a feedback signal we use the divergence in utility between how effectively the verifier utilizes the retrieved evidence and the ground-truth evidence to produce the final claim label. Empirical studies demonstrate the superiority of FER over prevailing baselines.

Comparative opinion is a common linguistic phenomenon. The opinion is expressed by comparing multiple targets on a shared aspect, e.g., “camera A is better than camera B in picture quality”. Among the various subtasks in opinion mining, comparative opinion classification is relatively less studied. Current solutions use rules or classifiers to identify opinions, i.e., better, worse, or same, through feature engineering. Because the features are directly derived from the input sentence, these solutions are sensitive to the order of the targets mentioned in the sentence. For example, “camera A is better than camera B” means the same as “camera B is worse than camera A”; but the features of these two sentences are completely different. In this paper, we approach comparative opinion classification through prompt learning, taking the advantage of embedded knowledge in pre-trained language model. We design a twin framework with dual prompts, named CORT. This extremely simple model delivers state-of-the-art and robust performance on all benchmark datasets for comparative opinion classification. We believe CORT well serves as a new baseline for comparative opinion classification.