Evidence data for automated fact-checking (AFC) can be in multiple modalities such as text, tables, images, audio, or video. While there is increasing interest in using images for AFC, previous works mostly focus on detecting manipulated or fake images. We propose a novel task, chart-based fact-checking, and introduce ChartBERT as the first model for AFC against chart evidence. ChartBERT leverages textual, structural and visual information of charts to determine the veracity of textual claims. For evaluation, we create ChartFC, a new dataset of 15,886 charts. We systematically evaluate 75 different vision-language (VL) baselines and show that ChartBERT outperforms VL models, achieving 63.8% accuracy. Our results suggest that the task is complex yet feasible, with many challenges ahead.
Inspired by human fact checkers, who use different types of evidence (e.g. tables, images, audio) in addition to text, several datasets with tabular evidence data have been released in recent years. Whilst the datasets encourage research on table fact-checking, they rely on information from restricted data sources, such as Wikipedia for creating claims and extracting evidence data, making the fact-checking process different from the real-world process used by fact checkers. In this paper, we introduce PubHealthTab, a table fact-checking dataset based on real world public health claims and noisy evidence tables from sources similar to those used by real fact checkers. We outline our approach for collecting evidence data from various websites and present an in-depth analysis of our dataset. Finally, we evaluate state-of-the-art table representation and pre-trained models fine-tuned on our dataset, achieving an overall F1 score of 0.73.
Standard practice for evaluating the performance of machine learning models for argument mining is to report different metrics such as accuracy or F1. However, little is usually known about the model’s stability and consistency when deployed in real-world settings. In this paper, we propose a robustness evaluation framework to guide the design of rigorous argument mining models. As part of the framework, we introduce several novel robustness tests tailored specifically to argument mining tasks. Additionally, we integrate existing robustness tests designed for other natural language processing tasks and re-purpose them for argument mining. Finally, we illustrate the utility of our framework on two widely used argument mining corpora, UKP topic-sentences and IBM Debater Evidence Sentence. We argue that our framework should be used in conjunction with standard performance evaluation techniques as a measure of model stability.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.