Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims

Verifying complex political claims is a challenging task, especially when politicians use various tactics to subtly misrepresent the facts. Automatic fact-checking systems fall short here, and their predictions like "half-true" are not very useful in isolation, since we have no idea which parts of the claim are true and which are not. In this work, we focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim. We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims. Given a claim and its verification paragraph written by fact-checkers, our trained annotators write subquestions covering both explicit propositions of the original claim and its implicit facets, such as asking about additional political context that changes our view of the claim's veracity. We study whether state-of-the-art models can generate such subquestions, showing that these models generate reasonable questions to ask, but predicting the comprehensive set of subquestions from the original claim without evidence remains challenging. We further show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers, suggesting that they can be useful pieces of a fact-checking pipeline.

Entity Cloze By Date: What LMs Know About Unseen Entities

Language models (LMs) are typically trained once on a large-scale corpus and used for years without being updated. However, in a dynamic world, new entities constantly arise. We propose a framework to analyze what LMs can infer about new entities that did not exist when the LMs were pretrained. We derive a dataset of entities indexed by their origination date and paired with their English Wikipedia articles, from which we can find sentences about each entity. We evaluate LMs' perplexity on masked spans within these sentences. We show that models more informed about the entities, such as those with access to a textual definition of them, achieve lower perplexity on this benchmark. Our experimental results demonstrate that making inferences about new entities remains difficult for LMs. Given its wide coverage on entity knowledge and temporal indexing, our dataset can be used to evaluate LMs and techniques designed to modify or extend their knowledge. Our automatic data collection pipeline can be easily used to continually update our benchmark.

How Do We Answer Complex Questions: Discourse Structure of Long-form Answers

Long-form answers, consisting of multiple sentences, can provide nuanced and comprehensive answers to a broader set of questions. To better understand this complex and understudied task, we study the functional structure of long-form answers collected from three datasets, ELI5, WebGPT and Natural Questions. Our main goal is to understand how humans organize information to craft complex answers. We develop an ontology of six sentence-level functional roles for long-form answers, and annotate 3.9k sentences in 640 answer paragraphs. Different answer collection methods manifest in different discourse structures. We further analyze model-generated answers -- finding that annotators agree less with each other when annotating model-generated answers compared to annotating human-written answers. Our annotated data enables training a strong classifier that can be used for automatic analysis. We hope our work can inspire future research on discourse-level modeling and evaluation of long-form QA systems.

Simulating Bandit Learning from User Feedback for Extractive Question Answering

We study learning from user feedback for extractive question answering by simulating feedback using supervised data. We cast the problem as contextual bandit learning, and analyze the characteristics of several learning scenarios with focus on reducing data annotation. We show that systems initially trained on a small number of examples can dramatically improve given feedback from users on model-predicted answers, and that one can use existing datasets to deploy systems in new domains without any annotation, but instead improving the system on-the-fly via user feedback.

SituatedQA: Incorporating Extra-Linguistic Contexts into QA

Answers to the same question may change depending on the extra-linguistic contexts (when and where the question was asked). To study this challenge, we introduce SituatedQA, an open-retrieval QA dataset where systems must produce the correct answer to a question given the temporal or geographical context. To construct SituatedQA, we first identify such questions in existing QA datasets. We find that a significant proportion of information seeking questions have context-dependent answers (e.g., roughly 16.5% of NQ-Open). For such context-dependent questions, we then crowdsource alternative contexts and their corresponding answers. Our study shows that existing models struggle with producing answers that are frequently updated or from uncommon locations. We further quantify how existing models, which are trained on data collected in the past, fail to generalize to answering questions asked in the present, even when provided with an updated evidence corpus (a roughly 15 point drop in accuracy). Our analysis suggests that open-retrieval QA benchmarks should incorporate extra-linguistic context to stay relevant globally and in the future. Our data, code, and datasheet are available at https://situatedqa.github.io/ .

Learning with Different Amounts of Annotation: From Zero to Many Labels

Training NLP systems typically assumes access to annotated data that has a single human label per example. Given imperfect labeling from annotators and inherent ambiguity of language, we hypothesize that single label is not sufficient to learn the spectrum of language interpretation. We explore new annotation distribution schemes, assigning multiple labels per example for a small subset of training examples. Introducing such multi label examples at the cost of annotating fewer examples brings clear gains on natural language inference task and entity typing task, even when we simply first train with a single label data and then fine tune with multi label examples. Extending a MixUp data augmentation framework, we propose a learning algorithm that can learn from training examples with different amount of annotation (with zero, one, or multiple labels). This algorithm efficiently combines signals from uneven training data and brings additional gains in low annotation budget and cross domain settings. Together, our method achieves consistent gains in two tasks, suggesting distributing labels unevenly among training examples can be beneficial for many NLP tasks.

Learning from Uneven Training Data: Unlabeled, Single Label, and Multiple Labels

Training NLP systems typically assumes access to annotated data that has a single human label per example. Given imperfect labeling from annotators and inherent ambiguity of language, we hypothesize that single label is not sufficient to learn the spectrum of language interpretation. We explore new label annotation distribution schemes, assigning multiple labels per example for a small subset of training examples. Introducing such multi label examples at the cost of annotating fewer examples brings clear gains on natural language inference task and entity typing task, even when we simply first train with a single label data and then fine tune with multi label examples. Extending a MixUp data augmentation framework, we propose a learning algorithm that can learn from uneven training examples (with zero, one, or multiple labels). This algorithm efficiently combines signals from uneven training data and brings additional gains in low annotation budget and cross domain settings. Together, our method achieves consistent gains in both accuracy and label distribution metrics in two tasks, suggesting training with uneven training data can be beneficial for many NLP tasks.

CREAK: A Dataset for Commonsense Reasoning over Entity Knowledge

Most benchmark datasets targeting commonsense reasoning focus on everyday scenarios: physical knowledge like knowing that you could fill a cup under a waterfall [Talmor et al., 2019], social knowledge like bumping into someone is awkward [Sap et al., 2019], and other generic situations. However, there is a rich space of commonsense inferences anchored to knowledge about specific entities: for example, deciding the truthfulness of a claim "Harry Potter can teach classes on how to fly on a broomstick." Can models learn to combine entity knowledge with commonsense reasoning in this fashion? We introduce CREAK, a testbed for commonsense reasoning about entity knowledge, bridging fact-checking about entities (Harry Potter is a wizard and is skilled at riding a broomstick) with commonsense inferences (if you're good at a skill you can teach others how to do it). Our dataset consists of 13k human-authored English claims about entities that are either true or false, in addition to a small contrast set. Crowdworkers can easily come up with these statements and human performance on the dataset is high (high 90s); we argue that models should be able to blend entity knowledge and commonsense reasoning to do well here. In our experiments, we focus on the closed-book setting and observe that a baseline model finetuned on existing fact verification benchmark struggles on CREAK. Training a model on CREAK improves accuracy by a substantial margin, but still falls short of human performance. Our benchmark provides a unique probe into natural language understanding models, testing both its ability to retrieve facts (e.g., who teaches at the University of Chicago?) and unstated commonsense knowledge (e.g., butlers do not yell at guests).

Knowing More About Questions Can Help: Improving Calibration in Question Answering

We study calibration in question answering, estimating whether model correctly predicts answer for each question. Unlike prior work which mainly rely on the model's confidence score, our calibrator incorporates information about the input example (e.g., question and the evidence context). Together with data augmentation via back translation, our simple approach achieves 5-10% gains in calibration accuracy on reading comprehension benchmarks. Furthermore, we present the first calibration study in the open retrieval setting, comparing the calibration accuracy of retrieval-based span prediction models and answer generation models. Here again, our approach shows consistent gains over calibrators relying on the model confidence. Our simple and efficient calibrator can be easily adapted to many tasks and model architectures, showing robust gains in all settings.

Misinfo Belief Frames: A Case Study on Covid & Climate News

Prior beliefs of readers impact the way in which they project meaning onto news headlines. These beliefs can influence their perception of news reliability, as well as their reaction to news, and their likelihood of spreading the misinformation through social networks. However, most prior work focuses on fact-checking veracity of news or stylometry rather than measuring impact of misinformation. We propose Misinfo Belief Frames, a formalism for understanding how readers perceive the reliability of news and the impact of misinformation. We also introduce the Misinfo Belief Frames (MBF) corpus, a dataset of 66k inferences over 23.5k headlines. Misinformation frames use commonsense reasoning to uncover implications of real and fake news headlines focused on global crises: the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. Our results using large-scale language modeling to predict misinformation frames show that machine-generated inferences can influence readers' trust in news headlines (readers' trust in news headlines was affected in 29.3% of cases). This demonstrates the potential effectiveness of using generated frames to counter misinformation.