Oana Cocarascu


2022

pdf bib
Proceedings of the Fifth Fact Extraction and VERification Workshop (FEVER)
Rami Aly | Christos Christodoulopoulos | Oana Cocarascu | Zhijiang Guo | Arpit Mittal | Michael Schlichtkrull | James Thorne | Andreas Vlachos
Proceedings of the Fifth Fact Extraction and VERification Workshop (FEVER)

2021

pdf bib
Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)
Rami Aly | Christos Christodoulopoulos | Oana Cocarascu | Zhijiang Guo | Arpit Mittal | Michael Schlichtkrull | James Thorne | Andreas Vlachos
Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)

pdf bib
The Fact Extraction and VERification Over Unstructured and Structured information (FEVEROUS) Shared Task
Rami Aly | Zhijiang Guo | Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull | James Thorne | Andreas Vlachos | Christos Christodoulopoulos | Oana Cocarascu | Arpit Mittal
Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)

The Fact Extraction and VERification Over Unstructured and Structured information (FEVEROUS) shared task, asks participating systems to determine whether human-authored claims are Supported or Refuted based on evidence retrieved from Wikipedia (or NotEnoughInfo if the claim cannot be verified). Compared to the FEVER 2018 shared task, the main challenge is the addition of structured data (tables and lists) as a source of evidence. The claims in the FEVEROUS dataset can be verified using only structured evidence, only unstructured evidence, or a mixture of both. Submissions are evaluated using the FEVEROUS score that combines label accuracy and evidence retrieval. Unlike FEVER 2018, FEVEROUS requires partial evidence to be returned for NotEnoughInfo claims, and the claims are longer and thus more complex. The shared task received 13 entries, six of which were able to beat the baseline system. The winning team was “Bust a move!”, achieving a FEVEROUS score of 27% (+9% compared to the baseline). In this paper we describe the shared task, present the full results and highlight commonalities and innovations among the participating systems.

2020

pdf bib
Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)
Christos Christodoulopoulos | James Thorne | Andreas Vlachos | Oana Cocarascu | Arpit Mittal
Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)

2019

pdf bib
Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)
James Thorne | Andreas Vlachos | Oana Cocarascu | Christos Christodoulopoulos | Arpit Mittal
Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)

pdf bib
The FEVER2.0 Shared Task
James Thorne | Andreas Vlachos | Oana Cocarascu | Christos Christodoulopoulos | Arpit Mittal
Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)

We present the results of the second Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER2.0) Shared Task. The task challenged participants to both build systems to verify factoid claims using evidence retrieved from Wikipedia and to generate adversarial attacks against other participant’s systems. The shared task had three phases: building, breaking and fixing. There were 8 systems in the builder’s round, three of which were new qualifying submissions for this shared task, and 5 adversaries generated instances designed to induce classification errors and one builder submitted a fixed system which had higher FEVER score and resilience than their first submission. All but one newly submitted systems attained FEVER scores higher than the best performing system from the first shared task and under adversarial evaluation, all systems exhibited losses in FEVER score. There was a great variety in adversarial attack types as well as the techniques used to generate the attacks, In this paper, we present the results of the shared task and a summary of the systems, highlighting commonalities and innovations among participating systems.

2018

pdf bib
Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)
James Thorne | Andreas Vlachos | Oana Cocarascu | Christos Christodoulopoulos | Arpit Mittal
Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)

pdf bib
The Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) Shared Task
James Thorne | Andreas Vlachos | Oana Cocarascu | Christos Christodoulopoulos | Arpit Mittal
Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)

We present the results of the first Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) Shared Task. The task challenged participants to classify whether human-written factoid claims could be SUPPORTED or REFUTED using evidence retrieved from Wikipedia. We received entries from 23 competing teams, 19 of which scored higher than the previously published baseline. The best performing system achieved a FEVER score of 64.21%. In this paper, we present the results of the shared task and a summary of the systems, highlighting commonalities and innovations among participating systems.

pdf bib
Combining Deep Learning and Argumentative Reasoning for the Analysis of Social Media Textual Content Using Small Data Sets
Oana Cocarascu | Francesca Toni
Computational Linguistics, Volume 44, Issue 4 - December 2018

The use of social media has become a regular habit for many and has changed the way people interact with each other. In this article, we focus on analyzing whether news headlines support tweets and whether reviews are deceptive by analyzing the interaction or the influence that these texts have on the others, thus exploiting contextual information. Concretely, we define a deep learning method for relation–based argument mining to extract argumentative relations of attack and support. We then use this method for determining whether news articles support tweets, a useful task in fact-checking settings, where determining agreement toward a statement is a useful step toward determining its truthfulness. Furthermore, we use our method for extracting bipolar argumentation frameworks from reviews to help detect whether they are deceptive. We show experimentally that our method performs well in both settings. In particular, in the case of deception detection, our method contributes a novel argumentative feature that, when used in combination with other features in standard supervised classifiers, outperforms the latter even on small data sets.

2017

pdf bib
Identifying attack and support argumentative relations using deep learning
Oana Cocarascu | Francesca Toni
Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

We propose a deep learning architecture to capture argumentative relations of attack and support from one piece of text to another, of the kind that naturally occur in a debate. The architecture uses two (unidirectional or bidirectional) Long Short-Term Memory networks and (trained or non-trained) word embeddings, and allows to considerably improve upon existing techniques that use syntactic features and supervised classifiers for the same form of (relation-based) argument mining.