-
Towards Dialogues for Joint Human-AI Reasoning and Value Alignment
Authors:
Elfia Bezou-Vrakatseli,
Oana Cocarascu,
Sanjay Modgil
Abstract:
We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct chall…
▽ More
We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct challenges that joint inquiry raises. Given recent dramatic advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs), and the anticipated increase in their use for decision making, we provide a roadmap for research into inquiry dialogues for supporting joint human-LLM reasoning tasks that are ethically salient, and that thereby require that decisions are value aligned.
△ Less
Submitted 28 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
ChartCheck: Explainable Fact-Checking over Real-World Chart Images
Authors:
Mubashara Akhtar,
Nikesh Subedi,
Vivek Gupta,
Sahar Tahmasebi,
Oana Cocarascu,
Elena Simperl
Abstract:
Whilst fact verification has attracted substantial interest in the natural language processing community, verifying misinforming statements against data visualizations such as charts has so far been overlooked. Charts are commonly used in the real-world to summarize and communicate key information, but they can also be easily misused to spread misinformation and promote certain agendas. In this pa…
▽ More
Whilst fact verification has attracted substantial interest in the natural language processing community, verifying misinforming statements against data visualizations such as charts has so far been overlooked. Charts are commonly used in the real-world to summarize and communicate key information, but they can also be easily misused to spread misinformation and promote certain agendas. In this paper, we introduce ChartCheck, a novel, large-scale dataset for explainable fact-checking against real-world charts, consisting of 1.7k charts and 10.5k human-written claims and explanations. We systematically evaluate ChartCheck using vision-language and chart-to-table models, and propose a baseline to the community. Finally, we study chart reasoning types and visual attributes that pose a challenge to these models
△ Less
Submitted 16 February, 2024; v1 submitted 13 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Exploring the Numerical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models: A Comprehensive Analysis on Tabular Data
Authors:
Mubashara Akhtar,
Abhilash Shankarampeta,
Vivek Gupta,
Arpit Patil,
Oana Cocarascu,
Elena Simperl
Abstract:
Numbers are crucial for various real-world domains such as finance, economics, and science. Thus, understanding and reasoning with numbers are essential skills for language models to solve different tasks. While different numerical benchmarks have been introduced in recent years, they are limited to specific numerical aspects mostly. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical taxonomy for numerical…
▽ More
Numbers are crucial for various real-world domains such as finance, economics, and science. Thus, understanding and reasoning with numbers are essential skills for language models to solve different tasks. While different numerical benchmarks have been introduced in recent years, they are limited to specific numerical aspects mostly. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical taxonomy for numerical reasoning skills with more than ten reasoning types across four levels: representation, number sense, manipulation, and complex reasoning. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art models to identify reasoning challenges specific to them. Henceforth, we develop a diverse set of numerical probes employing a semi-automated approach. We focus on the tabular Natural Language Inference (TNLI) task as a case study and measure models' performance shifts. Our results show that no model consistently excels across all numerical reasoning types. Among the probed models, FlanT5 (few-/zero-shot) and GPT-3.5 (few-shot) demonstrate strong overall numerical reasoning skills compared to other models. Label-flipping probes indicate that models often exploit dataset artifacts to predict the correct labels.
△ Less
Submitted 3 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Identifying Reasons for Bias: An Argumentation-Based Approach
Authors:
Madeleine Waller,
Odinaldo Rodrigues,
Oana Cocarascu
Abstract:
As algorithmic decision-making systems become more prevalent in society, ensuring the fairness of these systems is becoming increasingly important. Whilst there has been substantial research in building fair algorithmic decision-making systems, the majority of these methods require access to the training data, including personal characteristics, and are not transparent regarding which individuals…
▽ More
As algorithmic decision-making systems become more prevalent in society, ensuring the fairness of these systems is becoming increasingly important. Whilst there has been substantial research in building fair algorithmic decision-making systems, the majority of these methods require access to the training data, including personal characteristics, and are not transparent regarding which individuals are classified unfairly. In this paper, we propose a novel model-agnostic argumentation-based method to determine why an individual is classified differently in comparison to similar individuals. Our method uses a quantitative argumentation framework to represent attribute-value pairs of an individual and of those similar to them, and uses a well-known semantics to identify the attribute-value pairs in the individual contributing most to their different classification. We evaluate our method on two datasets commonly used in the fairness literature and illustrate its effectiveness in the identification of bias.
△ Less
Submitted 26 October, 2023; v1 submitted 25 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Bias Mitigation Methods for Binary Classification Decision-Making Systems: Survey and Recommendations
Authors:
Madeleine Waller,
Odinaldo Rodrigues,
Oana Cocarascu
Abstract:
Bias mitigation methods for binary classification decision-making systems have been widely researched due to the ever-growing importance of designing fair machine learning processes that are impartial and do not discriminate against individuals or groups based on protected personal characteristics. In this paper, we present a structured overview of the research landscape for bias mitigation method…
▽ More
Bias mitigation methods for binary classification decision-making systems have been widely researched due to the ever-growing importance of designing fair machine learning processes that are impartial and do not discriminate against individuals or groups based on protected personal characteristics. In this paper, we present a structured overview of the research landscape for bias mitigation methods, report on their benefits and limitations, and provide recommendations for the development of future bias mitigation methods for binary classification.
△ Less
Submitted 31 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Multimodal Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey
Authors:
Mubashara Akhtar,
Michael Schlichtkrull,
Zhijiang Guo,
Oana Cocarascu,
Elena Simperl,
Andreas Vlachos
Abstract:
Misinformation is often conveyed in multiple modalities, e.g. a miscaptioned image. Multimodal misinformation is perceived as more credible by humans, and spreads faster than its text-only counterparts. While an increasing body of research investigates automated fact-checking (AFC), previous surveys mostly focus on text. In this survey, we conceptualise a framework for AFC including subtasks uniqu…
▽ More
Misinformation is often conveyed in multiple modalities, e.g. a miscaptioned image. Multimodal misinformation is perceived as more credible by humans, and spreads faster than its text-only counterparts. While an increasing body of research investigates automated fact-checking (AFC), previous surveys mostly focus on text. In this survey, we conceptualise a framework for AFC including subtasks unique to multimodal misinformation. Furthermore, we discuss related terms used in different communities and map them to our framework. We focus on four modalities prevalent in real-world fact-checking: text, image, audio, and video. We survey benchmarks and models, and discuss limitations and promising directions for future research
△ Less
Submitted 25 October, 2023; v1 submitted 22 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Reading and Reasoning over Chart Images for Evidence-based Automated Fact-Checking
Authors:
Mubashara Akhtar,
Oana Cocarascu,
Elena Simperl
Abstract:
Evidence data for automated fact-checking (AFC) can be in multiple modalities such as text, tables, images, audio, or video. While there is increasing interest in using images for AFC, previous works mostly focus on detecting manipulated or fake images. We propose a novel task, chart-based fact-checking, and introduce ChartBERT as the first model for AFC against chart evidence. ChartBERT leverages…
▽ More
Evidence data for automated fact-checking (AFC) can be in multiple modalities such as text, tables, images, audio, or video. While there is increasing interest in using images for AFC, previous works mostly focus on detecting manipulated or fake images. We propose a novel task, chart-based fact-checking, and introduce ChartBERT as the first model for AFC against chart evidence. ChartBERT leverages textual, structural and visual information of charts to determine the veracity of textual claims. For evaluation, we create ChartFC, a new dataset of 15, 886 charts. We systematically evaluate 75 different vision-language (VL) baselines and show that ChartBERT outperforms VL models, achieving 63.8% accuracy. Our results suggest that the task is complex yet feasible, with many challenges ahead.
△ Less
Submitted 27 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
FEVEROUS: Fact Extraction and VERification Over Unstructured and Structured information
Authors:
Rami Aly,
Zhijiang Guo,
Michael Schlichtkrull,
James Thorne,
Andreas Vlachos,
Christos Christodoulopoulos,
Oana Cocarascu,
Arpit Mittal
Abstract:
Fact verification has attracted a lot of attention in the machine learning and natural language processing communities, as it is one of the key methods for detecting misinformation. Existing large-scale benchmarks for this task have focused mostly on textual sources, i.e. unstructured information, and thus ignored the wealth of information available in structured formats, such as tables. In this p…
▽ More
Fact verification has attracted a lot of attention in the machine learning and natural language processing communities, as it is one of the key methods for detecting misinformation. Existing large-scale benchmarks for this task have focused mostly on textual sources, i.e. unstructured information, and thus ignored the wealth of information available in structured formats, such as tables. In this paper we introduce a novel dataset and benchmark, Fact Extraction and VERification Over Unstructured and Structured information (FEVEROUS), which consists of 87,026 verified claims. Each claim is annotated with evidence in the form of sentences and/or cells from tables in Wikipedia, as well as a label indicating whether this evidence supports, refutes, or does not provide enough information to reach a verdict. Furthermore, we detail our efforts to track and minimize the biases present in the dataset and could be exploited by models, e.g. being able to predict the label without using evidence. Finally, we develop a baseline for verifying claims against text and tables which predicts both the correct evidence and verdict for 18% of the claims.
△ Less
Submitted 12 October, 2021; v1 submitted 10 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
An Explanatory Query-Based Framework for Exploring Academic Expertise
Authors:
Oana Cocarascu,
Andrew McLean,
Paul French,
Francesca Toni
Abstract:
The success of research institutions heavily relies upon identifying the right researchers "for the job": researchers may need to identify appropriate collaborators, often from across disciplines; students may need to identify suitable supervisors for projects of their interest; administrators may need to match funding opportunities with relevant researchers, and so on. Usually, finding potential…
▽ More
The success of research institutions heavily relies upon identifying the right researchers "for the job": researchers may need to identify appropriate collaborators, often from across disciplines; students may need to identify suitable supervisors for projects of their interest; administrators may need to match funding opportunities with relevant researchers, and so on. Usually, finding potential collaborators in institutions is a time-consuming manual search task prone to bias. In this paper, we propose a novel query-based framework for searching, scoring, and exploring research expertise automatically, based upon processing abstracts of academic publications. Given user queries in natural language, our framework finds researchers with relevant expertise, making use of domain-specific knowledge bases and word embeddings. It also generates explanations for its recommendations. We evaluate our framework with an institutional repository of papers from a leading university, using, as baselines, artificial neural networks and transformer-based models for a multilabel classification task to identify authors of publication abstracts. We also assess the cross-domain effectiveness of our framework with a (separate) research funding repository for the same institution. We show that our simple method is effective in identifying matches, while satisfying desirable properties and being efficient.
△ Less
Submitted 31 May, 2021; v1 submitted 28 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
Automatic Product Ontology Extraction from Textual Reviews
Authors:
Joel Oksanen,
Oana Cocarascu,
Francesca Toni
Abstract:
Ontologies have proven beneficial in different settings that make use of textual reviews. However, manually constructing ontologies is a laborious and time-consuming process in need of automation. We propose a novel methodology for automatically extracting ontologies, in the form of meronomies, from product reviews, using a very limited amount of hand-annotated training data. We show that the onto…
▽ More
Ontologies have proven beneficial in different settings that make use of textual reviews. However, manually constructing ontologies is a laborious and time-consuming process in need of automation. We propose a novel methodology for automatically extracting ontologies, in the form of meronomies, from product reviews, using a very limited amount of hand-annotated training data. We show that the ontologies generated by our method outperform hand-crafted ontologies (WordNet) and ontologies extracted by existing methods (Text2Onto and COMET) in several, diverse settings. Specifically, our generated ontologies outperform the others when evaluated by human annotators as well as on an existing Q&A dataset from Amazon. Moreover, our method is better able to generalise, in capturing knowledge about unseen products. Finally, we consider a real-world setting, showing that our method is better able to determine recommended products based on their reviews, in alternative to using Amazon's standard score aggregations.
△ Less
Submitted 23 May, 2021;
originally announced May 2021.
-
A Dataset Independent Set of Baselines for Relation Prediction in Argument Mining
Authors:
Oana Cocarascu,
Elena Cabrio,
Serena Villata,
Francesca Toni
Abstract:
Argument Mining is the research area which aims at extracting argument components and predicting argumentative relations (i.e.,support and attack) from text. In particular, numerous approaches have been proposed in the literature to predict the relations holding between the arguments, and application-specific annotated resources were built for this purpose. Despite the fact that these resources ha…
▽ More
Argument Mining is the research area which aims at extracting argument components and predicting argumentative relations (i.e.,support and attack) from text. In particular, numerous approaches have been proposed in the literature to predict the relations holding between the arguments, and application-specific annotated resources were built for this purpose. Despite the fact that these resources have been created to experiment on the same task, the definition of a single relation prediction method to be successfully applied to a significant portion of these datasets is an open research problem in Argument Mining. This means that none of the methods proposed in the literature can be easily ported from one resource to another. In this paper, we address this problem by proposing a set of dataset independent strong neural baselines which obtain homogeneous results on all the datasets proposed in the literature for the argumentative relation prediction task. Thus, our baselines can be employed by the Argument Mining community to compare more effectively how well a method performs on the argumentative relation prediction task.
△ Less
Submitted 14 February, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
-
The Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) Shared Task
Authors:
James Thorne,
Andreas Vlachos,
Oana Cocarascu,
Christos Christodoulopoulos,
Arpit Mittal
Abstract:
We present the results of the first Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) Shared Task. The task challenged participants to classify whether human-written factoid claims could be Supported or Refuted using evidence retrieved from Wikipedia. We received entries from 23 competing teams, 19 of which scored higher than the previously published baseline. The best performing system achieved a FEVER sc…
▽ More
We present the results of the first Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) Shared Task. The task challenged participants to classify whether human-written factoid claims could be Supported or Refuted using evidence retrieved from Wikipedia. We received entries from 23 competing teams, 19 of which scored higher than the previously published baseline. The best performing system achieved a FEVER score of 64.21%. In this paper, we present the results of the shared task and a summary of the systems, highlighting commonalities and innovations among participating systems.
△ Less
Submitted 30 November, 2018; v1 submitted 27 November, 2018;
originally announced November 2018.
