Breaking NLI Systems with Sentences that Require Simple Lexical Inferences

We create a new NLI test set that shows the deficiency of state-of-the-art models in inferences that require lexical and world knowledge. The new examples are simpler than the SNLI test set, containing sentences that differ by at most one word from sentences in the training set. Yet, the performance on the new test set is substantially worse across systems trained on SNLI, demonstrating that these systems are limited in their generalization ability, failing to capture many simple inferences.Comment: 6 pages, short paper at ACL 201

Why do you think that? Exploring Faithful Sentence-Level Rationales Without Supervision

Evaluating the trustworthiness of a model's prediction is essential for differentiating between `right for the right reasons' and `right for the wrong reasons'. Identifying textual spans that determine the target label, known as faithful rationales, usually relies on pipeline approaches or reinforcement learning. However, such methods either require supervision and thus costly annotation of the rationales or employ non-differentiable models. We propose a differentiable training-framework to create models which output faithful rationales on a sentence level, by solely applying supervision on the target task. To achieve this, our model solves the task based on each rationale individually and learns to assign high scores to those which solved the task best. Our evaluation on three different datasets shows competitive results compared to a standard BERT blackbox while exceeding a pipeline counterpart's performance in two cases. We further exploit the transparent decision-making process of these models to prefer selecting the correct rationales by applying direct supervision, thereby boosting the performance on the rationale-level.Comment: EMNLP Findings 202

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

Missing Counter-Evidence Renders NLP Fact-Checking Unrealistic for Misinformation

Misinformation emerges in times of uncertainty when credible information is limited. This is challenging for NLP-based fact-checking as it relies on counter-evidence, which may not yet be available. Despite increasing interest in automatic fact-checking, it is still unclear if automated approaches can realistically refute harmful real-world misinformation. Here, we contrast and compare NLP fact-checking with how professional fact-checkers combat misinformation in the absence of counter-evidence. In our analysis, we show that, by design, existing NLP task definitions for fact-checking cannot refute misinformation as professional fact-checkers do for the majority of claims. We then define two requirements that the evidence in datasets must fulfill for realistic fact-checking: It must be (1) sufficient to refute the claim and (2) not leaked from existing fact-checking articles. We survey existing fact-checking datasets and find that all of them fail to satisfy both criteria. Finally, we perform experiments to demonstrate that models trained on a large-scale fact-checking dataset rely on leaked evidence, which makes them unsuitable in real-world scenarios. Taken together, we show that current NLP fact-checking cannot realistically combat real-world misinformation because it depends on unrealistic assumptions about counter-evidence in the data

Evidence-based Verification for Real World Information Needs

Claim verification is the task of predicting the veracity of written statements against evidence. Previous large-scale datasets model the task as classification, ignoring the need to retrieve evidence, or are constructed for research purposes, and may not be representative of real-world needs. In this paper, we introduce a novel claim verification dataset with instances derived from search-engine queries, yielding 10,987 claims annotated with evidence that represent real-world information needs. For each claim, we annotate evidence from full Wikipedia articles with both section and sentence-level granularity. Our annotation allows comparison between two complementary approaches to verification: stance classification, and evidence extraction followed by entailment recognition. In our comprehensive evaluation, we find no significant difference in accuracy between these two approaches. This enables systems to use evidence extraction to summarize a rationale for an end-user while maintaining the accuracy when predicting a claim's veracity. With challenging claims and evidence documents containing hundreds of sentences, our dataset presents interesting challenges that are not captured in previous work -- evidenced through transfer learning experiments. We release code and data to support further research on this task.Comment: Code and Data https://github.com/CambridgeNLIP/verification-real-world-info-need

AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence

Automated fact-checking systems verify claims against evidence to predict their veracity. In real-world scenarios, the retrieved evidence may not unambiguously support or refute the claim and yield conflicting but valid interpretations. Existing fact-checking datasets assume that the models developed with them predict a single veracity label for each claim, thus discouraging the handling of such ambiguity. To address this issue we present AmbiFC,1 a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. It contains fine-grained evidence annotations of 50k passages from 5k Wikipedia pages. We analyze the disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC, observing a strong correlation of annotator disagreement with linguistic phenomena such as underspecification and probabilistic reasoning. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels, and find that a pipeline that learns the label distribution for sentence-level evidence selection and veracity prediction yields the best performance. We compare models trained on different subsets of AmbiFC and show that models trained on the ambiguous instances perform better when faced with the identified linguistic phenomena