Search for: All records

Retrieving evidence to support or refute claims is a core part of automatic fact-checking. Prior work makes simplifying assumptions in retrieval that depart from real-world use cases: either no access to evidence, access to evidence curated by a human fact-checker, or access to evidence published after a claim was made. In this work, we present the first realistic pipeline to check real-world claims by retrieving raw evidence from the web. We restrict our retriever to only search documents available prior to the claim’s making, modeling the realistic scenario of emerging claims. Our pipeline includes five components: claim decomposition, raw document retrieval, fine-grained evidence retrieval, claim-focused summarization, and veracity judgment. We conduct experiments on complex political claims in the ClaimDecomp dataset and show that the aggregated evidence produced by our pipeline improves veracity judgments. Human evaluation finds the evidence summary produced by our system is reliable (it does not hallucinate information) and relevant to answering key questions about a claim, suggesting that it can assist fact-checkers even when it does not reflect a complete evidence set. 

While large language models (LLMs) equipped with techniques like chain-of-thought prompting have demonstrated impressive capabilities, they still fall short in their ability to reason robustly in complex settings. However, evaluating LLM reasoning is challenging because system capabilities continue to grow while benchmark datasets for tasks like logical deduction have remained static. We introduce MuSR, a dataset for evaluating language models on multistep soft reasoning tasks specified in a natural language narrative. This dataset has two crucial features. First, it is created through a novel neurosymbolic synthetic-to-natural generation algorithm, enabling the construction of complex reasoning instances that challenge GPT-4 (e.g., murder mysteries roughly 1000 words in length) and which can be scaled further as more capable LLMs are released. Second, our dataset instances are free text narratives corresponding to real-world domains of reasoning; this makes it simultaneously much more challenging than other synthetically-crafted benchmarks while remaining realistic and tractable for human annotators to solve with high accuracy. We evaluate a range of LLMs and prompting techniques on this dataset and characterize the gaps that remain for techniques like chain-of-thought to perform robust reasoning. 

Prior work has combined chain-of-thought prompting in large language models (LLMs) with programmatic representations to perform effective and transparent reasoning. While such an approach works well for tasks that only require forward reasoning (e.g., straightforward arithmetic), it is less effective for constraint solving problems that require more sophisticated planning and search. In this paper, we propose a new satisfiability-aided language modeling (SatLM) approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We use an LLM to generate a declarative task specification rather than an imperative program and leverage an off-the-shelf automated theorem prover to derive the final answer. This approach has two key advantages. The declarative specification is closer to the problem description than the reasoning steps are, so the LLM can parse it out of the description more accurately. Furthermore, by offloading the actual reasoning task to an automated theorem prover, our approach can guarantee the correctness of the answer with respect to the parsed specification and avoid planning errors in the solving process. We evaluate SATLM on 8 different datasets and show that it consistently outperforms program-aided LMs in the imperative paradigm. In particular, SATLM outperforms program-aided LMs by 23% on a challenging subset of the GSM arithmetic reasoning dataset; SATLM also achieves a new SoTA on LSAT and BoardgameQA, surpassing previous models that are trained on the respective training sets. 

Modern language models have the capacity to store and use immense amounts of knowledge about real-world entities, but it remains unclear how to update such knowledge stored in model parameters. While prior methods for updating knowledge in LMs successfully inject atomic facts, updated LMs fail to make inferences based on injected facts. In this work, we demonstrate that a context distillation-based approach can both impart knowledge about entities and propagate that knowledge to enable broader inferences. Our approach consists of two stages: transfer set generation and distillation on the transfer set. We first generate a transfer set by prompting a language model to generate continuations from the entity definition. Then, we update the model parameters so that the distribution of the LM (the student) matches the distribution of the LM conditioned on the definition (the teacher) on the transfer set. Our experiments demonstrate that this approach is more effective at propagating knowledge updates than fine-tuning and other gradient-based knowledge-editing methods. Moreover, it does not compromise performance in other contexts, even when injecting the definitions of up to 150 entities at once. 

Textual entailment models are increasingly applied in settings like fact-checking, presupposition verification in question answering, or summary evaluation. However, these represent a significant domain shift from existing entailment datasets, and models underperform as a result. We propose WiCE, a new fine-grained textual entailment dataset built on natural claim and evidence pairs extracted from Wikipedia. In addition to standard claim-level entailment, WiCE provides entailment judgments over sub-sentence units of the claim, and a minimal subset of evidence sentences that support each subclaim. To support this, we propose an automatic claim decomposition strategy using GPT-3.5 which we show is also effective at improving entailment models’ performance on multiple datasets at test time. Finally, we show that real claims in our dataset involve challenging verification and retrieval problems that existing models fail to address. 

Recent work has shown how to prompt large language models with explanations to obtain strong performance on textual reasoning tasks, i.e., the chain-of-thought paradigm. However, subtly different explanations can yield widely varying downstream task accuracy. Explanations that have not been “tuned” for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by non-experts, may lead to mediocre performance. This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion. We first generate sets of candidate explanations for each example in the prompt using a leave-one-out scheme, then find an effective combination of these explanations with a two-stage framework. We first evaluate explanations for each in-context example in isolation according to two proxy metrics, log likelihood and accuracy on new examples. Then, we search over combinations of explanations to find one that yields high performance against a silver-labeled development set. Across four textual reasoning tasks spanning question answering, mathematical reasoning, and natural language inference, results show that our proxy metrics correlate with ground truth accuracy and our overall method can effectively improve prompts over crowdworker annotations and naive search strategies. 

The propensity of abstractive summarization models to make factual errors has been studied extensively, including design of metrics to detect factual errors and annotation of errors in current systems’ outputs. However, the ever-evolving nature of summarization systems, metrics, and annotated benchmarks makes factuality evaluation a moving target, and drawing clear comparisons among metrics has become increasingly difficult. In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models. Critically, our analysis shows that much of the recent improvement in the factuality detection space has been on summaries from older (pre-Transformer) models instead of more relevant recent summarization models. We further perform a finer-grained analysis per error-type and find similar performance variance across error types for different factuality metrics. Our results show that no one metric is superior in all settings or for all error types, and we provide recommendations for best practices given these insights. 

Despite recent progress in abstractive summarization, models often generate summaries with factual errors. Numerous approaches to detect these errors have been proposed, the most popular of which are question answering (QA)-based factuality metrics. These have been shown to work well at predicting summary-level factuality and have potential to localize errors within summaries, but this latter capability has not been systematically evaluated in past research. In this paper, we conduct the first such analysis and find that, contrary to our expectations, QA-based frameworks fail to correctly identify error spans in generated summaries and are outperformed by trivial exact match baselines. Our analysis reveals a major reason for such poor localization: questions generated by the QG module often inherit errors from non-factual summaries which are then propagated further into downstream modules. Moreover, even human-in-the-loop question generation cannot easily offset these problems. Our experiments conclusively show that there exist fundamental issues with localization using the QA framework which cannot be fixed solely by stronger QA and QG models.