Abstract:Scientific claim verification against tables typically requires predicting whether a claim is supported or refuted given a table. However, we argue that predicting the final label alone is insufficient: it reveals little about the model's reasoning and offers limited interpretability. To address this, we reframe table-text alignment as an explanation task, requiring models to identify the table cells essential for claim verification. We build a new dataset by extending the SciTab benchmark with human-annotated cell-level rationales. Annotators verify the claim label and highlight the minimal set of cells needed to support their decision. After the annotation process, we utilize the collected information and propose a taxonomy for handling ambiguous cases. Our experiments show that (i) incorporating table alignment information improves claim verification performance, and (ii) most LLMs, while often predicting correct labels, fail to recover human-aligned rationales, suggesting that their predictions do not stem from faithful reasoning.
Abstract:In this study, we delve into the Thresholding Linear Bandit (TLB) problem, a nuanced domain within stochastic Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB) problems, focusing on maximizing decision accuracy against a linearly defined threshold under resource constraints. We present LinearAPT, a novel algorithm designed for the fixed budget setting of TLB, providing an efficient solution to optimize sequential decision-making. This algorithm not only offers a theoretical upper bound for estimated loss but also showcases robust performance on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Our contributions highlight the adaptability, simplicity, and computational efficiency of LinearAPT, making it a valuable addition to the toolkit for addressing complex sequential decision-making challenges.