Navigating the Noisy Crowd: Finding Key Information for Claim Verification

The objective of claim verification is to determine the veracity of a given claim based on multiple pieces of evidence. Typically, each piece of evidence is a sentence or paragraph drawn from sources like Wikipedia. Mathematically, given a claim $c$ and an evidence set containing $n$ piece of evidence $\mathcal{E}=\{e_{1},e_{2},\cdots,e_{n}\}$. the task is to find a model $\hat{p}=f(c,\mathcal{E})$ that outputs the predicted veracity $\hat{p}$, where $\hat{p}=\text{True}\ or\ \text{False}$.

Evidence Abstraction serves as the first part of EACon. It involves processing each raw piece of evidence to extract useful information and eliminate noisy information. Instead of naively prompting an LLM to perform extraction and summarization tasks, we designed a keyword-based method.

As shown in Part I of Figure 2, if an LLM is prompted to summarize the evidence against a claim that is inherently false, there is a risk of conflicting information that could lead to subpar results. To alleviate this problem, we designed a keyword-based method. EACon extracts keywords from the claim, which encapsulate the claim’s essence without introducing any biases from the claim itself. This approach helps in circumventing potential conflicts. However, as shown in Part II of Figure 2, if all the keywords are used to summarize an evidence, the redundant keywords may lead the LLM to output content not conveyed by the evidence. To address this, we designed a Keyword Selection procedure to remove the irrelevant keywords, resulting in better summarization results. The effectiveness of the keyword-based design is empirically validated in Section 4.5. Subsequent sections will delve into the details of the Evidence Abstraction process, encompassing Keyword Extraction, Keyword Selection, and Evidence Summarization.

Claim Deconstruction is the second component of EACon. It takes the original claim as input and generates several subclaims that focus on different aspects. Simply asking an LLM to judge the claim’s truthfulness is insufficient, as LLMs tend to compare the overall semantic meaning rather than scrutinize minor details. However, for claim verification, even the slightest error should result in the claim being judged as false, even if the semantic meaning remains largely unchanged. Relying solely on LLM judgments can only address obvious errors, failing to meet the objectives of comprehensive claim verification. By deconstructing the claim into subclaims, we can leverage LLMs to individually verify different aspects and details, thereby increasing the likelihood of identifying errors. Still, we prompt an LLM to deconstruct claim into subclaims:

$$\{u_{1},u_{2},\cdots,u_{r}\}=\arg\max p(\mathcal{U}|T_{CD},c;\theta_{LLM})$$

(4)

where $u_{i}$ means the $i$th subclaim from the potential subclaim set $\mathcal{U}$. $T_{CD}$ is the prompt template used for Claim Deconstruction:

The last step of EACon is Subclaim Verification. After obtaining the set of subclaims $\{u_{1},u_{2},\cdots,u_{r}\}$, the truthfulness of the original claim can be verified by checking each subclaim individually. If any subclaim is false, the original claim is deemed false. The original claim is considered true only if all subclaims are correct. Mathematically, this can be represented as:

$$\hat{p}=\begin{cases}\text{False}&\text{if }\exists i,f(u_{i},\mathcal{A}\cup\mathcal{E})=\text{False}\\ \text{True}&\text{Other}\end{cases}$$

(5)

where $\hat{p}$ is the veracity prediction of the claim $c$, $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ are the abstracted evidence set and raw evidence set. $f$ is the function used to verify the truthfulness of each subclaim $u_{i}$. We implement $f$ using LLM in a zero-shot manner, consistent with prior work (Pan et al. 2023b). Mathematically, this can be written as:

$$f(u_{i},\mathcal{A}\cup\mathcal{E})=\arg\max p(p_{i}|T_{SV},u_{i},\mathcal{A}\cup\mathcal{E},c;\theta_{LLM})$$

(6)

where $p_{i}=\text{True}\ or\ \text{False}$ represents the veracity prediction of the $i$th subclaim $u_{i}$, and $T_{SV}$ is the prompt template used for Subclaim Verification:

The segment of the prompt highlighted in dark color is optional. The decision to incorporate the context of the original claim for subclaim verification depends on the complexity of the claim. In our experiments, we observe that for complex claims, incorporating the original claim as context is more beneficial for verification. Further discussion on the optional prompt segment will be provided in the experimental section.

In line with existing research, we have selected two publicly available datasets to assess the performance of EACon. Evaluation is carried out using the validation set. The chosen datasets are HOVER (Jiang et al. 2020) and FEVEROUS-S (Aly et al. 2021).

• •

  HOVER The HOVER dataset comprises claims that necessitate verification through multiple pieces of evidence and multi-hop reasoning. It is organized into three subsets, each corresponding to a different level of reasoning complexity based on the number of hops. Specifically, the two-hop subset (HOVER-2) consists of 1,126 claims, the three-hop subset (HOVER-3) comprises 1,835 claims, and the four-hop (HOVER-4) subset includes 1,039 claims.

• •

  FEVEROUS-S FEVEROUS is a fact-checking dataset designed to validate claims using both structured and unstructured data sources. Our experimentation is focused on a subset of FEVEROUS, known as FEVEROUS-S, which exclusively involves claims that rely on unstructured data. In terms of claim complexity, it is noted that the claims in the HOVER dataset exhibit higher complexity compared to those in FEVEROUS-S.

Given our emphasis on the claim verification task, all experiments are executed using the evidence provided within the dataset (referred to as golden evidence). The performance is assessed using the Macro-F1 score as the evaluation metric.

EACon is a versatile framework that can be adapted to various existing large language models. In order to ensure credibility and inclusivity, we have selected two open-source LLMs with differing parameter sizes as the foundational backbone for EACon. These models are Vicuna-13B (Chiang et al. 2023) and Mixtral-8x7B (Jiang et al. 2024). Our experimentation includes zero-shot and few-shot trials using these backbone models. Furthermore, we conduct experiments with these two language models within another framework, ProgramFC (Pan et al. 2023b), which prompts LLMs to generate and execute programs for the purpose of claim verification.

The following pretrained or fine-tuned models are also considered as baseline models:

• •

  BERT-FC (Soleimani, Monz, and Worring 2020): Pretrained BERT model (Devlin et al. 2019) tailored for fact-checking tasks.

• •

  LisT5 (Jiang, Pradeep, and Lin 2021): Pretrained T5 model (Raffel et al. 2020) specialized for fact-checking tasks.

• •

  RoBERTa-NLI (Nie et al. 2020): Pretrained RoBERTa-large model (Liu et al. 2019) fine-tuned on four natural language inference datasets.

• •

  DeBERTaV3-NLI (He, Gao, and Chen 2021): Pretrained DeBERTaV3 model fine-tuned on FEVER (Thorne et al. 2018) and four natural language inference datasets.

• •

  MULTIVERS (Wadden et al. 2022): A LongFormer model (Beltagy, Peters, and Cohan 2020) fine-tuned on the FEVER dataset.

In the Keyword Selection process, both similarity score thresholds ($t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$) are set to $60$ (maximum is 100) to ensure the retention of important keywords.

EACon conducts the verification process in a zero-shot manner but includes in-context examples in the prompts for Evidence Abstraction and Claim Deconstruction. To ensure fair experimentation, the model does not use any examples that are not utilized by the baseline models. Few-shot experiments with backbone models use the same examples as prompts in ProgramFC. Examples for Evidence Abstraction and Claim Deconstruction are rephrased from ProgramFC to suit task requirements. Subclaim Verification uses the optional prompt component $T_{SV}$ for the HOVER dataset but not for the FEVEROUS-S dataset. A more detailed discussion on $T_{SV}$ is provided in Section 4.5.

Since open-source models are utilized, all experiments are conducted on a local machine server equipped with an AMD EPYC 7742 (256) @ 2.250GHz CPU and NVIDIA RTX 3090 (24G) GPUs (Vicuna-13B experiments require two GPUs, while Mixtral-8x7B necessitates a minimum of five GPUs). A temperature of 0.05 is utilized to reduce randomness, while all other hyperparameters in sampling output of LLMs remain default.

Table 1 presents the results of our method and various baseline models. The data clearly demonstrates that EACon consistently and substantially improve model performance across both datasets, using either Vicuna or Mixtral as the backbone model.

Compared to pretrained/fine-tuned models, zero-shot LLMs do not exhibit advantage, especially compared to DeBERTaV3. However, applying our proposed model, EACon, to these LLMs demonstrates a more pronounced advantage in complex tasks. On simpler datasets like FEVEROUS-S and HOVER-2 (2-hop reasoning), EACon-equipped models perform comparably to pretrained/fine-tuned models. But for more complex tasks like HOVER-3 and HOVER-4, EACon-equipped LLMs show a distinct advantage.

In comparison to other LLM-based approaches for claim verification, our model demonstrates superior stability. The few-shot technique does not consistently improve performance, aligning with prior research (Hu et al. 2023). ProgramFC’s reliance on LLMs’ program generation and execution capabilities makes it less adaptable and more sensitive to intermediate errors compared to the model.