One key consequence of the information revolution is a significant increase and a contamination of our information supply. The practice of fact checking won't suffice to eliminate the biases in text data we observe, as the degree of factuality alone does not determine whether biases exist in the spectrum of opinions visible to us. To better understand controversial issues, one needs to view them from a diverse yet comprehensive set of perspectives. For example, there are many ways to respond to a claim such as "animals should have lawful rights", and these responses form a spectrum of perspectives, each with a stance relative to this claim and, ideally, with evidence supporting it. Inherently, this is a natural language understanding task, and we propose to address it as such. Specifically, we propose the task of substantiated perspective discovery where, given a claim, a system is expected to discover a diverse set of well-corroborated perspectives that take a stance with respect to the claim. Each perspective should be substantiated by evidence paragraphs which summarize pertinent results and facts. We construct PERSPECTRUM, a dataset of claims, perspectives and evidence, making use of online debate websites to create the initial data collection, and augmenting it using search engines in order to expand and diversify our dataset. We use crowd-sourcing to filter out noise and ensure high-quality data. Our dataset contains 1k claims, accompanied with pools of 10k and 8k perspective sentences and evidence paragraphs, respectively. We provide a thorough analysis of the dataset to highlight key underlying language understanding challenges, and show that human baselines across multiple subtasks far outperform ma-chine baselines built upon state-of-the-art NLP techniques. This poses a challenge and opportunity for the NLP community to address.
The task of or focuses on the assessment of the truthfulness of a claim, given evidence @cite_36 @cite_5 @cite_33 @cite_32 @cite_45 @cite_40 @cite_44 @cite_42 . These tasks are highly related to the task of textual-entailment that has been extensively studied in the field @cite_29 @cite_1 @cite_34 . Some recent work study jointly the problem of identifying evidence and verifying that it supports the claim @cite_22 .
@cite_33 @cite_22 @cite_36 @cite_29 @cite_42 @cite_1 @cite_32 @cite_44 @cite_40 @cite_45 @cite_5 @cite_34
2553850906 2886390638 2251214593 2130158090 2119707623 2154474435 2963416784 2815470153 2808554530 621249151 2788496822
The World Wide Web (WWW) has become a rapidly growing platform consisting of numerous sources which provide supporting or contradictory information about claims (e.g., "Chicken meat is healthy"). In order to decide whether a claim is true or false, one needs to analyze content of different sources of information on the Web, measure credibility of information sources, and aggregate all these information. This is a tedious process and the Web search engines address only part of the overall problem, viz., producing only a list of relevant sources. In this paper, we present ClaimEval, a novel and integrated approach which given a set of claims to validate, extracts a set of pro and con arguments from the Web information sources, and jointly estimates credibility of sources and correctness of claims. ClaimEval uses Probabilistic Soft Logic (PSL), resulting in a flexible and principled framework which makes it easy to state and incorporate different forms of prior-knowledge. Through extensive experiments on real-world datasets, we demonstrate ClaimEval's capability in determining validity of a set of claims, resulting in improved accuracy compared to state-of-the-art baselines. In this paper we introduce the task of fact checking, i.e. the assessment of the truthfulness of a claim. The task is commonly performed manually by journalists verifying the claims made by public figures. Furthermore, ordinary citizens need to assess the truthfulness of the increasing volume of statements they consume. Thus, developing fact checking systems is likely to be of use to various members of society. We first define the task and detail the construction of a publicly available dataset using statements fact-checked by journalists available online. Then, we discuss baseline approaches for the task and the challenges that need to be addressed. Finally, we discuss how fact checking relates to mainstream natural language processing tasks and can stimulate further research. This paper presents the Third PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge (RTE-3), providing an overview of the dataset creating methodology and the submitted systems. In creating this year's dataset, a number of longer texts were introduced to make the challenge more oriented to realistic scenarios. Additionally, a pool of resources was offered so that the participants could share common tools. A pilot task was also set up, aimed at differentiating unknown entailments from identified contradictions and providing justifications for overall system decisions. 26 participants submitted 44 runs, using different approaches and generally presenting new entailment models and achieving higher scores than in the previous challenges. Argumentation schemes are structures or templates for various kinds of arguments. Given the text of an argument with premises and conclusion identified, we classify it as an instance of one of five common schemes, using features specific to each scheme. We achieve accuracies of 63--91 in one-against-others classification and 80--94 in pairwise classification (baseline = 50 in both cases). * List of Figures* List of Tables* Preface* Acknowledgments* Textual Entailment* Architectures and Approaches* Alignment, Classification, and Learning* Case Studies* Knowledge Acquisition for Textual Entailment* Research Directions in RTE* Bibliography* Authors' Biographies Social media has quickly risen to prominence as a news source, yet lingering doubts remain about its ability to spread rumor and misinformation. Systematically studying this phenomenon, however, has been difficult due to the need to collect large-scale, unbiased data along with in-situ judgements of its accuracy. In this paper we present CREDBANK, a corpus designed to bridge this gap by systematically combining machine and human computation. Specifically, CREDBANK is a corpus of tweets, topics, events and associated human credibility judgements. It is based on the real-time tracking of more than 1 billion streaming tweets over a period of more than three months, computational summarizations of those tweets, and intelligent routings of the tweet streams to human annotators — within a few hours of those events unfolding on Twitter. In total CREDBANK comprises more than 60 million tweets grouped into 1049 real-world events, each annotated by 30 human annotators. As an example, with CREDBANK one can quickly calculate that roughly 24 of the events in the global tweet stream are not perceived as credible. We have made CREDBANK publicly available, and hope it will enable new research questions related to online information credibility in fields such as social science, data mining and health.