Search for: All records

Verifying political claims is a challenging task, as politicians can use various tactics to subtly misrepresent the facts for their agenda. Existing automatic fact-checking systems fall short here, and their predictions like "half-true" are not very useful in isolation, since it is unclear which parts of a claim are true or false. 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 additional political context that changes our view of the claim's veracity. We study whether state-of-the-art pre-trained models can learn to generate such subquestions. Our experiments show that these models generate reasonable questions, but predicting implied subquestions based only on the claim (without consulting other evidence) remains challenging. Nevertheless, we show that predicted subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers, suggesting that claim decomposition can be a useful piece of a fact-checking pipeline. 

Current textual question answering (QA) models achieve strong performance on in-domain test sets, but often do so by fitting surface-level patterns, so they fail to generalize to out-of-distribution settings. To make a more robust and understandable QA system, we model question answering as an alignment problem. We decompose both the question and context into smaller units based on off-the-shelf semantic representations (here, semantic roles), and align the question to a subgraph of the context in order to find the answer. We formulate our model as a structured SVM, with alignment scores computed via BERT, and we can train end-to-end despite using beam search for approximate inference. Our use of explicit alignments allows us to explore a set of constraints with which we can prohibit certain types of bad model behavior arising in cross-domain settings. Furthermore, by investigating differences in scores across different potential answers, we can seek to understand what particular aspects of the input lead the model to choose the answer without relying on post-hoc explanation techniques. We train our model on SQuAD v1.1 and test it on several adversarial and out-of-domain datasets. The results show that our model is more robust than the standard BERT QA model, and constraints derived from alignment scores allow us to effectively trade off coverage and accuracy. 

To build robust question answering systems, we need the ability to verify whether answers to questions are truly correct, not just “good enough” in the context of imperfect QA datasets. We explore the use of natural language inference (NLI) as a way to achieve this goal, as NLI inherently requires the premise (document context) to contain all necessary information to support the hypothesis (proposed answer to the question). We leverage large pre-trained models and recent prior datasets to construct powerful question conversion and decontextualization modules, which can reformulate QA instances as premise-hypothesis pairs with very high reliability. Then, by combining standard NLI datasets with NLI examples automatically derived from QA training data, we can train NLI models to evaluate QA models’ proposed answers. We show that our approach improves the confidence estimation of a QA model across different domains, evaluated in a selective QA setting. Careful manual analysis over the predictions of our NLI model shows that it can further identify cases where the QA model produces the right answer for the wrong reason, i.e., when the answer sentence cannot address all aspects of the question.