One challenge in fact checking is the ability to improve the transparency of the decision. We present a fact checking method that uses reference information in knowledge graphs (KGs) to assess claims and explain its decisions. KGs contain a formal representation of knowledge with semantic descriptions of entities and their relationships. We exploit such rich semantics to produce interpretable explanations for the fact checking output. As information in a KG is inevitably incomplete, we rely on logical rule discovery and on Web text mining to gather the evidence to assess a given claim. Uncertain rules and facts are turned into logical programs and the checking task is modeled as an inference problem in a probabilistic extension of answer set programs. Experiments show that the probabilistic inference enables the efficient labeling of claims with interpretable explanations, and the quality of the results is higher than state of the art baselines.
There are two main tasks in computational fact checking: (1) monitor and spot claims @cite_15 @cite_0 , (2) check claims and explain outcomes. We focus on the second task and on factual facts, specifically. Related approaches try to align the fact to trusted data resources, such as KGs @cite_18 , Web documents @cite_3 , and databases @cite_8 @cite_23 . These approaches create features for binary classifiers from the data in the KG. Features exploit the structure of the training examples, in the form of paths @cite_26 @cite_19 or geometric properties in a multi-dimensional space with embeddings @cite_22 @cite_2 . As providing interpretable descriptions of the outcome of a ML model, such as SVM, is an active topic of research @cite_5 , we argue that semantically rich rules and their evidence facts are useful explanations for a fact checking outcome.
@cite_18 @cite_26 @cite_22 @cite_8 @cite_3 @cite_0 @cite_19 @cite_23 @cite_2 @cite_5 @cite_15
2964092925 1532503642 2339329611 2518510348
The volume of information generated online makes it impossible to manually fact-check all claims. Computational approaches for fact checking may be the key to help mitigate the risks of massive misinformation spread. Such approaches can be designed to not only be scalable and effective at assessing veracity of dubious claims, but also to boost a human fact checker's productivity by surfacing relevant facts and patterns to aid their analysis. We present a novel, unsupervised network-flow based approach to determine the truthfulness of a statement of fact expressed in the form of a triple. We view a knowledge graph of background information about real-world entities as a flow network, and show that computational fact checking then amounts to finding a "knowledge stream" connecting the subject and object of the triple. Evaluation on a range of real-world and hand-crafted datasets of facts reveals that this network-flow model can be very effective in discerning true statements from false ones, outperforming existing algorithms on many test cases. Moreover, the model is expressive in its ability to automatically discover several useful patterns and surface relevant facts that may help a human fact checker. Traditional fact checking by expert journalists cannot keep up with the enormous volume of information that is now generated online. Computational fact checking may significantly enhance our ability to evaluate the veracity of dubious information. Here we show that the complexities of human fact checking can be approximated quite well by finding the shortest path between concept nodes under properly defined semantic proximity metrics on knowledge graphs. Framed as a network problem this approach is feasible with efficient computational techniques. We evaluate this approach by examining tens of thousands of claims related to history, entertainment, geography, and biographical information using a public knowledge graph extracted from Wikipedia. Statements independently known to be true consistently receive higher support via our method than do false ones. These findings represent a significant step toward scalable computational fact-checking methods that may one day mitigate the spread of harmful misinformation. Traditional fact checking by experts and analysts cannot keep pace with the volume of newly created information. It is important and necessary, therefore, to enhance our ability to computationally determine whether some statement of fact is true or false. We view this problem as a link-prediction task in a knowledge graph, and present a discriminative path-based method for fact checking in knowledge graphs that incorporates connectivity, type information, and predicate interactions. Given a statement S of the form (subject, predicate, object), for example, (Chicago, capitalOf, Illinois), our approach mines discriminative paths that alternatively define the generalized statement (U.S. city, predicate, U.S. state) and uses the mined rules to evaluate the veracity of statement S . We evaluate our approach by examining thousands of claims related to history, geography, biology, and politics using a public, million node knowledge graph extracted from Wikipedia and PubMedDB. Not only does our approach significantly outperform related models, we also find that the discriminative predicate path model is easily interpretable and provides sensible reasons for the final determination. We propose a new task in the field of computational argumentation in which we investigate qualitative properties of Web arguments, namely their convincingness. We cast the problem as relation classification, where a pair of arguments having the same stance to the same prompt is judged. We annotate a large datasets of 16k pairs of arguments over 32 topics and investigate whether the relation “A is more convincing than B” exhibits properties of total ordering; these findings are used as global constraints for cleaning the crowdsourced data. We propose two tasks: (1) predicting which argument from an argument pair is more convincing and (2) ranking all arguments to the topic based on their convincingness. We experiment with feature-rich SVM and bidirectional LSTM and obtain 0.76-0.78 accuracy and 0.35-0.40 Spearman’s correlation in a cross-topic evaluation. We release the newly created corpus UKPConvArg1 and the experimental software under open licenses.