Markus Leippold

Saeid Ashraf Vaghefi, Qian Wang, Veruska Muccione et al. · eth-zurich

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant progress in recent years, achieving remarkable results in question-answering tasks (QA). However, they still face two major challenges: hallucination and outdated information after the training phase. These challenges take center stage in critical domains like climate change, where obtaining accurate and up-to-date information from reliable sources in a limited time is essential and difficult. To overcome these barriers, one potential solution is to provide LLMs with access to external, scientifically accurate, and robust sources (long-term memory) to continuously update their knowledge and prevent the propagation of inaccurate, incorrect, or outdated information. In this study, we enhanced GPT-4 by integrating the information from the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental (IPCC AR6), the most comprehensive, up-to-date, and reliable source in this domain. We present our conversational AI prototype, available at www.chatclimate.ai and demonstrate its ability to answer challenging questions accurately in three different QA scenarios: asking from 1) GPT-4, 2) chatClimate, and 3) hybrid chatClimate. The answers and their sources were evaluated by our team of IPCC authors, who used their expert knowledge to score the accuracy of the answers from 1 (very-low) to 5 (very-high). The evaluation showed that the hybrid chatClimate provided more accurate answers, highlighting the effectiveness of our solution. This approach can be easily scaled for chatbots in specific domains, enabling the delivery of reliable and accurate information.

Jingwei Ni, Julia Bingler, Chiara Colesanti-Senni et al. · eth-zurich

In the face of climate change, are companies really taking substantial steps toward more sustainable operations? A comprehensive answer lies in the dense, information-rich landscape of corporate sustainability reports. However, the sheer volume and complexity of these reports make human analysis very costly. Therefore, only a few entities worldwide have the resources to analyze these reports at scale, which leads to a lack of transparency in sustainability reporting. Empowering stakeholders with LLM-based automatic analysis tools can be a promising way to democratize sustainability report analysis. However, developing such tools is challenging due to (1) the hallucination of LLMs and (2) the inefficiency of bringing domain experts into the AI development loop. In this paper, we ChatReport, a novel LLM-based system to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports, addressing existing challenges by (1) making the answers traceable to reduce the harm of hallucination and (2) actively involving domain experts in the development loop. We make our methodology, annotated datasets, and generated analyses of 1015 reports publicly available.

Jingwei Ni, Julia Bingler, Chiara Colesanti-Senni et al. · eth-zurich

This paper introduces a novel approach to enhance Large Language Models (LLMs) with expert knowledge to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports by benchmarking them against the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations. Corporate sustainability reports are crucial in assessing organizations' environmental and social risks and impacts. However, analyzing these reports' vast amounts of information makes human analysis often too costly. As a result, only a few entities worldwide have the resources to analyze these reports, which could lead to a lack of transparency. While AI-powered tools can automatically analyze the data, they are prone to inaccuracies as they lack domain-specific expertise. This paper introduces a novel approach to enhance LLMs with expert knowledge to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports. We christen our tool CHATREPORT, and apply it in a first use case to assess corporate climate risk disclosures following the TCFD recommendations. CHATREPORT results from collaborating with experts in climate science, finance, economic policy, and computer science, demonstrating how domain experts can be involved in developing AI tools. We make our prompt templates, generated data, and scores available to the public to encourage transparency.

Daniel Hershcovich, Nicolas Webersinke, Mathias Kraus et al.

The climate impact of AI, and NLP research in particular, has become a serious issue given the enormous amount of energy that is increasingly being used for training and running computational models. Consequently, increasing focus is placed on efficient NLP. However, this important initiative lacks simple guidelines that would allow for systematic climate reporting of NLP research. We argue that this deficiency is one of the reasons why very few publications in NLP report key figures that would allow a more thorough examination of environmental impact. As a remedy, we propose a climate performance model card with the primary purpose of being practically usable with only limited information about experiments and the underlying computer hardware. We describe why this step is essential to increase awareness about the environmental impact of NLP research and, thereby, paving the way for more thorough discussions.

Jannis Bulian, Mike S. Schäfer, Afra Amini et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) rise in popularity, it is necessary to assess their capability in critically relevant domains. We present a comprehensive evaluation framework, grounded in science communication research, to assess LLM responses to questions about climate change. Our framework emphasizes both presentational and epistemological adequacy, offering a fine-grained analysis of LLM generations spanning 8 dimensions and 30 issues. Our evaluation task is a real-world example of a growing number of challenging problems where AI can complement and lift human performance. We introduce a novel protocol for scalable oversight that relies on AI Assistance and raters with relevant education. We evaluate several recent LLMs on a set of diverse climate questions. Our results point to a significant gap between surface and epistemological qualities of LLMs in the realm of climate communication.

Tobias Schimanski, Julia Bingler, Camilla Hyslop et al.

Public and private actors struggle to assess the vast amounts of information about sustainability commitments made by various institutions. To address this problem, we create a novel tool for automatically detecting corporate, national, and regional net zero and reduction targets in three steps. First, we introduce an expert-annotated data set with 3.5K text samples. Second, we train and release ClimateBERT-NetZero, a natural language classifier to detect whether a text contains a net zero or reduction target. Third, we showcase its analysis potential with two use cases: We first demonstrate how ClimateBERT-NetZero can be combined with conventional question-answering (Q&A) models to analyze the ambitions displayed in net zero and reduction targets. Furthermore, we employ the ClimateBERT-NetZero model on quarterly earning call transcripts and outline how communication patterns evolve over time. Our experiments demonstrate promising pathways for extracting and analyzing net zero and emission reduction targets at scale.

Mathias Kraus, Julia Anna Bingler, Markus Leippold et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly transformed the landscape of artificial intelligence by demonstrating their ability in generating human-like text across diverse topics. However, despite their impressive capabilities, LLMs lack recent information and often employ imprecise language, which can be detrimental in domains where accuracy is crucial, such as climate change. In this study, we make use of recent ideas to harness the potential of LLMs by viewing them as agents that access multiple sources, including databases containing recent and precise information about organizations, institutions, and companies. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through a prototype agent that retrieves emission data from ClimateWatch (https://www.climatewatchdata.org/) and leverages general Google search. By integrating these resources with LLMs, our approach overcomes the limitations associated with imprecise language and delivers more reliable and accurate information in the critical domain of climate change. This work paves the way for future advancements in LLMs and their application in domains where precision is of paramount importance.

Dominik Stammbach, Nicolas Webersinke, Julia Anna Bingler et al.

To transition to a green economy, environmental claims made by companies must be reliable, comparable, and verifiable. To analyze such claims at scale, automated methods are needed to detect them in the first place. However, there exist no datasets or models for this. Thus, this paper introduces the task of environmental claim detection. To accompany the task, we release an expert-annotated dataset and models trained on this dataset. We preview one potential application of such models: We detect environmental claims made in quarterly earning calls and find that the number of environmental claims has steadily increased since the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Christian Buck, Levke Caesar, Michelle Chen Huebscher et al.

The emerging paradigm of AI co-scientists focuses on tasks characterized by repeatable verification, where agents explore search spaces in 'guess and check' loops. This paradigm does not extend to problems where repeated evaluation is impossible and ground truth is established by the consensus synthesis of theory and existing evidence. We evaluate a Gemini-based AI environment designed to support collaborative scientific assessment, integrated into a standard scientific workflow. In collaboration with a diverse group of 13 scientists working in the field of climate science, we tested the system on a complex topic: the stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Our results show that AI can accelerate the scientific workflow. The group produced a comprehensive synthesis of 79 papers through 104 revision cycles in just over 46 person-hours. AI contribution was significant: most AI-generated content was retained in the report. AI also helped maintain logical consistency and presentation quality. However, expert additions were crucial to ensure its acceptability: less than half of the report was produced by AI. Furthermore, substantial oversight was required to expand and elevate the content to rigorous scientific standards.

Tobias Schimanski, Imene Kolli, Yu Fan et al.

PDFs are the second-most used document type on the internet (after HTML). Yet, existing QA datasets commonly start from text sources or only address specific domains. In this paper, we present pdfQA, a multi-domain 2K human-annotated (real-pdfQA) and 2K synthetic dataset (syn-pdfQA) differentiating QA pairs in ten complexity dimensions (e.g., file type, source modality, source position, answer type). We apply and evaluate quality and difficulty filters on both datasets, obtaining valid and challenging QA pairs. We answer the questions with open-source LLMs, revealing existing challenges that correlate with our complexity dimensions. pdfQA presents a basis for end-to-end QA pipeline evaluation, testing diverse skill sets and local optimizations (e.g., in information retrieval or parsing).

Jingwei Ni, Ekaterina Fadeeva, Tianyi Wu et al.

Solving complex tasks usually requires LLMs to generate long multi-step reasoning chains. Previous work has shown that verifying the correctness of individual reasoning steps can further improve the performance and efficiency of LLMs on such tasks and enhance solution interpretability. However, existing verification approaches, such as Process Reward Models (PRMs), are either computationally expensive, limited to specific domains, or require large-scale human or model-generated annotations. Thus, we propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores. We train transformer-based uncertainty quantification heads (UHeads) that use the internal states of a frozen LLM to estimate the uncertainty of its reasoning steps during generation. The approach is fully automatic: target labels are generated either by another larger LLM (e.g., DeepSeek R1) or in a self-supervised manner by the original model itself. UHeads are both effective and lightweight, containing less than 10M parameters. Across multiple domains, including mathematics, planning, and general knowledge question answering, they match or even surpass the performance of PRMs that are up to 810x larger. Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification, offering a promising direction toward scalable and generalizable introspective LLMs.

Tobias Schimanski, Stefanie Lewandowski, Christian Woerle et al.

Conventional information retrieval is concerned with identifying the relevance of texts for a given query. Yet, the conventional definition of relevance is dominated by aspects of similarity in texts, leaving unobserved whether the text is truly useful for addressing the query. For instance, when answering whether Paris is larger than Berlin, texts about Paris being in France are relevant (lexical/semantic similarity), but not useful. In this paper, we introduce UsefulBench, a domain-specific dataset curated by three professional analysts labeling whether a text is connected to a query (relevance) or holds practical value in responding to it (usefulness). We show that classic similarity-based information retrieval aligns more strongly with relevance. While LLM-based systems can counteract this bias, we find that domain-specific problems require a high degree of expertise, which current LLMs do not fully incorporate. We explore approaches to (partially) overcome this challenge. However, UsefulBench presents a dataset challenge for targeted information retrieval systems.

Yu Fan, Jingwei Ni, Jakob Merane et al. · eth-zurich

Long-form legal reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) in spite of recent advances in test-time scaling. To address this, we introduce \textsc{LEXam}, a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels. The dataset comprises 4,886 law exam questions in English and German, including 2,841 long-form, open-ended questions and 2,045 multiple-choice questions. Besides reference answers, the open questions are also accompanied by explicit guidance outlining the expected legal reasoning approach such as issue spotting, rule recall, or rule application. Our evaluation on both open-ended and multiple-choice questions present significant challenges for current LLMs; in particular, they notably struggle with open questions that require structured, multi-step legal reasoning. Moreover, our results underscore the effectiveness of the dataset in differentiating between models with varying capabilities. Deploying an ensemble LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm with rigorous human expert validation, we demonstrate how model-generated reasoning steps can be evaluated consistently and accurately, closely aligning with human expert assessments. Our evaluation setup provides a scalable method to assess legal reasoning quality beyond simple accuracy metrics. We have open-sourced our code on https://github.com/LEXam-Benchmark/LEXam and released our data on https://huggingface.co/datasets/LEXam-Benchmark/LEXam. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io.

Jingwei Ni, Tobias Schimanski, Meihong Lin et al.

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely employed to ground responses to queries on domain-specific documents. But do RAG implementations leave out important information when answering queries that need an integrated analysis of information (e.g., Tell me good news in the stock market today.)? To address these concerns, RAG developers need to annotate information retrieval (IR) data for their domain of interest, which is challenging because (1) domain-specific queries usually need nuanced definitions of relevance beyond shallow semantic relevance; and (2) human or GPT-4 annotation is costly and cannot cover all (query, document) pairs (i.e., annotation selection bias), thus harming the effectiveness in evaluating IR recall. To address these challenges, we propose DIRAS (Domain-specific Information Retrieval Annotation with Scalability), a manual-annotation-free schema that fine-tunes open-sourced LLMs to consider nuanced relevance definition and annotate (partial) relevance labels with calibrated relevance scores. Extensive evaluation shows that DIRAS enables smaller (8B) LLMs to achieve GPT-4-level performance on annotating and ranking unseen (query, document) pairs, and is helpful for real-world RAG development. All code, LLM generations, and human annotations can be found in \url{https://github.com/EdisonNi-hku/DIRAS}.

Jingwei Ni, Minjing Shi, Dominik Stammbach et al. · eth-zurich

With the rise of generative AI, automated fact-checking methods to combat misinformation are becoming more and more important. However, factual claim detection, the first step in a fact-checking pipeline, suffers from two key issues that limit its scalability and generalizability: (1) inconsistency in definitions of the task and what a claim is, and (2) the high cost of manual annotation. To address (1), we review the definitions in related work and propose a unifying definition of factual claims that focuses on verifiability. To address (2), we introduce AFaCTA (Automatic Factual Claim deTection Annotator), a novel framework that assists in the annotation of factual claims with the help of large language models (LLMs). AFaCTA calibrates its annotation confidence with consistency along three predefined reasoning paths. Extensive evaluation and experiments in the domain of political speech reveal that AFaCTA can efficiently assist experts in annotating factual claims and training high-quality classifiers, and can work with or without expert supervision. Our analyses also result in PoliClaim, a comprehensive claim detection dataset spanning diverse political topics.

Tobias Schimanski, Jingwei Ni, Mathias Kraus et al. · eth-zurich

Advances towards more faithful and traceable answers of Large Language Models (LLMs) are crucial for various research and practical endeavors. One avenue in reaching this goal is basing the answers on reliable sources. However, this Evidence-Based QA has proven to work insufficiently with LLMs in terms of citing the correct sources (source quality) and truthfully representing the information within sources (answer attributability). In this work, we systematically investigate how to robustly fine-tune LLMs for better source quality and answer attributability. Specifically, we introduce a data generation pipeline with automated data quality filters, which can synthesize diversified high-quality training and testing data at scale. We further introduce four test sets to benchmark the robustness of fine-tuned specialist models. Extensive evaluation shows that fine-tuning on synthetic data improves performance on both in- and out-of-distribution. Furthermore, we show that data quality, which can be drastically improved by proposed quality filters, matters more than quantity in improving Evidence-Based QA.

Markus Leippold, Saeid Ashraf Vaghefi, Dominik Stammbach et al. · eth-zurich

This paper presents Climinator, a novel AI-based tool designed to automate the fact-checking of climate change claims. Utilizing an array of Large Language Models (LLMs) informed by authoritative sources like the IPCC reports and peer-reviewed scientific literature, Climinator employs an innovative Mediator-Advocate framework. This design allows Climinator to effectively synthesize varying scientific perspectives, leading to robust, evidence-based evaluations. Our model demonstrates remarkable accuracy when testing claims collected from Climate Feedback and Skeptical Science. Notably, when integrating an advocate with a climate science denial perspective in our framework, Climinator's iterative debate process reliably converges towards scientific consensus, underscoring its adeptness at reconciling diverse viewpoints into science-based, factual conclusions. While our research is subject to certain limitations and necessitates careful interpretation, our approach holds significant potential. We hope to stimulate further research and encourage exploring its applicability in other contexts, including political fact-checking and legal domains.

Jingwei Ni, Yu Fan, Vilém Zouhar et al. · eth-zurich

Variation in human annotation (i.e., disagreements) is common in NLP, often reflecting important information like task subjectivity and sample ambiguity. Modeling this variation is important for applications that are sensitive to such information. Although RLVR-style reasoning (Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards) has improved Large Language Model (LLM) performance on many tasks, it remains unclear whether such reasoning enables LLMs to capture informative variation in human annotation. In this work, we evaluate the influence of different reasoning settings on LLM disagreement modeling. We systematically evaluate each reasoning setting across model sizes, distribution expression methods, and steering methods, resulting in 60 experimental setups across 3 tasks. Surprisingly, our results show that RLVR-style reasoning degrades performance in disagreement modeling, while naive Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves the performance of RLHF LLMs (RL from human feedback). These findings underscore the potential risk of replacing human annotators with reasoning LLMs, especially when disagreements are important.

Tobias Schimanski, Chiara Colesanti Senni, Glen Gostlow et al. · eth-zurich

Nature is an amorphous concept. Yet, it is essential for the planet's well-being to understand how the economy interacts with it. To address the growing demand for information on corporate nature disclosure, we provide datasets and classifiers to detect nature communication by companies. We ground our approach in the guidelines of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). Particularly, we focus on the specific dimensions of water, forest, and biodiversity. For each dimension, we create an expert-annotated dataset with 2,200 text samples and train classifier models. Furthermore, we show that nature communication is more prevalent in hotspot areas and directly effected industries like agriculture and utilities. Our approach is the first to respond to calls to assess corporate nature communication on a large scale.

Chenfei Xiong, Jingwei Ni, Yu Fan et al. · eth-zurich

We introduce Co-DETECT (Collaborative Discovery of Edge cases in TExt ClassificaTion), a novel mixed-initiative annotation framework that integrates human expertise with automatic annotation guided by large language models (LLMs). Co-DETECT starts with an initial, sketch-level codebook and dataset provided by a domain expert, then leverages the LLM to annotate the data and identify edge cases that are not well described by the initial codebook. Specifically, Co-DETECT flags challenging examples, induces high-level, generalizable descriptions of edge cases, and assists user in incorporating edge case handling rules to improve the codebook. This iterative process enables more effective handling of nuanced phenomena through compact, generalizable annotation rules. Extensive user study, qualitative and quantitative analyses prove the effectiveness of Co-DETECT.

Saeid Ario Vaghefi, Aymane Hachcham, Veronica Grasso et al.

Tracking financial investments in climate adaptation is a complex and expertise-intensive task, particularly for Early Warning Systems (EWS), which lack standardized financial reporting across multilateral development banks (MDBs) and funds. To address this challenge, we introduce an LLM-based agentic AI system that integrates contextual retrieval, fine-tuning, and multi-step reasoning to extract relevant financial data, classify investments, and ensure compliance with funding guidelines. Our study focuses on a real-world application: tracking EWS investments in the Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) Fund. We analyze 25 MDB project documents and evaluate multiple AI-driven classification methods, including zero-shot and few-shot learning, fine-tuned transformer-based classifiers, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, and an agent-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach. Our results show that the agent-based RAG approach significantly outperforms other methods, achieving 87\% accuracy, 89\% precision, and 83\% recall. Additionally, we contribute a benchmark dataset and expert-annotated corpus, providing a valuable resource for future research in AI-driven financial tracking and climate finance transparency.

Tianyi Wu, Jingwei Ni, Bryan Hooi et al. · eth-zurich

Instruction fine-tuning (IFT) can increase the informativeness of large language models (LLMs), but may reduce their truthfulness. This trade-off arises because IFT steers LLMs to generate responses containing long-tail knowledge that was not well covered during pre-training. As a result, models become more informative but less accurate when generalizing to unseen tasks. In this paper, we empirically demonstrate how unfamiliar knowledge in IFT datasets can negatively affect the truthfulness of LLMs, and we introduce two new IFT paradigms, $UNIT_{cut}$ and $UNIT_{ref}$, to address this issue. $UNIT_{cut}$ identifies and removes unfamiliar knowledge from IFT datasets to mitigate its impact on model truthfulness, whereas $UNIT_{ref}$ trains LLMs to recognize their uncertainty and explicitly indicate it at the end of their responses. Our experiments show that $UNIT_{cut}$ substantially improves LLM truthfulness, while $UNIT_{ref}$ maintains high informativeness and reduces hallucinations by distinguishing between confident and uncertain statements.

Michelle Chen Huebscher, Katharine Mach, Aleksandar Stanić et al.

Evaluating how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle complex, specialized knowledge remains a critical challenge. We address this through the lens of climate change by introducing CLINB, a benchmark that assesses models on open-ended, grounded, multimodal question answering tasks with clear requirements for knowledge quality and evidential support. CLINB relies on a dataset of real users' questions and evaluation rubrics curated by leading climate scientists. We implement and validate a model-based evaluation process and evaluate several frontier models. Our findings reveal a critical dichotomy. Frontier models demonstrate remarkable knowledge synthesis capabilities, often exhibiting PhD-level understanding and presentation quality. They outperform "hybrid" answers curated by domain experts assisted by weaker models. However, this performance is countered by failures in grounding. The quality of evidence varies, with substantial hallucination rates for references and images. We argue that bridging this gap between knowledge synthesis and verifiable attribution is essential for the deployment of AI in scientific workflows and that reliable, interpretable benchmarks like CLINB are needed to progress towards building trustworthy AI systems.

Imene Kolli, Ario Saeid Vaghefi, Chiara Colesanti Senni et al.

InfluenceMap's LobbyMap Platform monitors the climate policy engagement of over 500 companies and 250 industry associations, assessing each entity's support or opposition to science-based policy pathways for achieving the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Although InfluenceMap has made progress with automating key elements of the analytical workflow, a significant portion of the assessment remains manual, making it time- and labor-intensive and susceptible to human error. We propose an AI-assisted framework to accelerate the monitoring of corporate climate policy engagement by leveraging Retrieval-Augmented Generation to automate the most time-intensive extraction of relevant evidence from large-scale textual data. Our evaluation shows that a combination of layout-aware parsing, the Nomic embedding model, and few-shot prompting strategies yields the best performance in extracting and classifying evidence from multilingual corporate documents. We conclude that while the automated RAG system effectively accelerates evidence extraction, the nuanced nature of the analysis necessitates a human-in-the-loop approach where the technology augments, rather than replaces, expert judgment to ensure accuracy.

Jingwei Ni, Zhijing Jin, Qian Wang et al.

Multi-task learning (MTL) aims at achieving a better model by leveraging data and knowledge from multiple tasks. However, MTL does not always work -- sometimes negative transfer occurs between tasks, especially when aggregating loosely related skills, leaving it an open question when MTL works. Previous studies show that MTL performance can be improved by algorithmic tricks. However, what tasks and skills should be included is less well explored. In this work, we conduct a case study in Financial NLP where multiple datasets exist for skills relevant to the domain, such as numeric reasoning and sentiment analysis. Due to the task difficulty and data scarcity in the Financial NLP domain, we explore when aggregating such diverse skills from multiple datasets with MTL can work. Our findings suggest that the key to MTL success lies in skill diversity, relatedness between tasks, and choice of aggregation size and shared capacity. Specifically, MTL works well when tasks are diverse but related, and when the size of the task aggregation and the shared capacity of the model are balanced to avoid overwhelming certain tasks.

Nicolas Webersinke, Mathias Kraus, Julia Anna Bingler et al.

Over the recent years, large pretrained language models (LM) have revolutionized the field of natural language processing (NLP). However, while pretraining on general language has been shown to work very well for common language, it has been observed that niche language poses problems. In particular, climate-related texts include specific language that common LMs can not represent accurately. We argue that this shortcoming of today's LMs limits the applicability of modern NLP to the broad field of text processing of climate-related texts. As a remedy, we propose CLIMATEBERT, a transformer-based language model that is further pretrained on over 2 million paragraphs of climate-related texts, crawled from various sources such as common news, research articles, and climate reporting of companies. We find that CLIMATEBERT leads to a 48% improvement on a masked language model objective which, in turn, leads to lowering error rates by 3.57% to 35.71% for various climate-related downstream tasks like text classification, sentiment analysis, and fact-checking.

Thomas Diggelmann, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Jannis Bulian et al.

We introduce CLIMATE-FEVER, a new publicly available dataset for verification of climate change-related claims. By providing a dataset for the research community, we aim to facilitate and encourage work on improving algorithms for retrieving evidential support for climate-specific claims, addressing the underlying language understanding challenges, and ultimately help alleviate the impact of misinformation on climate change. We adapt the methodology of FEVER [1], the largest dataset of artificially designed claims, to real-life claims collected from the Internet. While during this process, we could rely on the expertise of renowned climate scientists, it turned out to be no easy task. We discuss the surprising, subtle complexity of modeling real-world climate-related claims within the \textsc{fever} framework, which we believe provides a valuable challenge for general natural language understanding. We hope that our work will mark the beginning of a new exciting long-term joint effort by the climate science and AI community.

Francesco S. Varini, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Massimiliano Ciaramita et al.

Climate change communication in the mass media and other textual sources may affect and shape public perception. Extracting climate change information from these sources is an important task, e.g., for filtering content and e-discovery, sentiment analysis, automatic summarization, question-answering, and fact-checking. However, automating this process is a challenge, as climate change is a complex, fast-moving, and often ambiguous topic with scarce resources for popular text-based AI tasks. In this paper, we introduce \textsc{ClimaText}, a dataset for sentence-based climate change topic detection, which we make publicly available. We explore different approaches to identify the climate change topic in various text sources. We find that popular keyword-based models are not adequate for such a complex and evolving task. Context-based algorithms like BERT \cite{devlin2018bert} can detect, in addition to many trivial cases, a variety of complex and implicit topic patterns. Nevertheless, our analysis reveals a great potential for improvement in several directions, such as, e.g., capturing the discussion on indirect effects of climate change. Hence, we hope this work can serve as a good starting point for further research on this topic.

Rahul Mishra, Dhruv Gupta, Markus Leippold

We present SUMO, a neural attention-based approach that learns to establish the correctness of textual claims based on evidence in the form of text documents (e.g., news articles or Web documents). SUMO further generates an extractive summary by presenting a diversified set of sentences from the documents that explain its decision on the correctness of the textual claim. Prior approaches to address the problem of fact checking and evidence extraction have relied on simple concatenation of claim and document word embeddings as an input to claim driven attention weight computation. This is done so as to extract salient words and sentences from the documents that help establish the correctness of the claim. However, this design of claim-driven attention does not capture the contextual information in documents properly. We improve on the prior art by using improved claim and title guided hierarchical attention to model effective contextual cues. We show the efficacy of our approach on datasets concerning political, healthcare, and environmental issues.

Rahul Mishra, Piyush Yadav, Remi Calizzano et al.

Measuring the congruence between two texts has several useful applications, such as detecting the prevalent deceptive and misleading news headlines on the web. Many works have proposed machine learning based solutions such as text similarity between the headline and body text to detect the incongruence. Text similarity based methods fail to perform well due to different inherent challenges such as relative length mismatch between the news headline and its body content and non-overlapping vocabulary. On the other hand, more recent works that use headline guided attention to learn a headline derived contextual representation of the news body also result in convoluting overall representation due to the news body's lengthiness. This paper proposes a method that uses inter-mutual attention-based semantic matching between the original and synthetically generated headlines, which utilizes the difference between all pairs of word embeddings of words involved. The paper also investigates two more variations of our method, which use concatenation and dot-products of word embeddings of the words of original and synthetic headlines. We observe that the proposed method outperforms prior arts significantly for two publicly available datasets.