Pepa Atanasova

Momchil Hardalov, Pepa Atanasova, Todor Mihaylov et al. · berkeley

We present bgGLUE(Bulgarian General Language Understanding Evaluation), a benchmark for evaluating language models on Natural Language Understanding (NLU) tasks in Bulgarian. Our benchmark includes NLU tasks targeting a variety of NLP problems (e.g., natural language inference, fact-checking, named entity recognition, sentiment analysis, question answering, etc.) and machine learning tasks (sequence labeling, document-level classification, and regression). We run the first systematic evaluation of pre-trained language models for Bulgarian, comparing and contrasting results across the nine tasks in the benchmark. The evaluation results show strong performance on sequence labeling tasks, but there is a lot of room for improvement for tasks that require more complex reasoning. We make bgGLUE publicly available together with the fine-tuning and the evaluation code, as well as a public leaderboard at https://bgglue.github.io/, and we hope that it will enable further advancements in developing NLU models for Bulgarian.

Sara Vera Marjanović, Haeun Yu, Pepa Atanasova et al.

Knowledge-intensive language understanding tasks require Language Models (LMs) to integrate relevant context, mitigating their inherent weaknesses, such as incomplete or outdated knowledge. However, conflicting knowledge can be present in the LM's parameters, termed intra-memory conflict, which can affect a model's propensity to accept contextual knowledge. To study the effect of intra-memory conflict on an LM's ability to accept relevant context, we utilize two knowledge conflict measures and a novel dataset containing inherently conflicting data, DynamicQA. This dataset includes facts with a temporal dynamic nature where facts can change over time and disputable dynamic facts, which can change depending on the viewpoint. DynamicQA is the first to include real-world knowledge conflicts and provide context to study the link between the different types of knowledge conflicts. We also evaluate several measures on their ability to reflect the presence of intra-memory conflict: semantic entropy and a novel coherent persuasion score. With our extensive experiments, we verify that LMs exhibit a greater degree of intra-memory conflict with dynamic facts compared to facts that have a single truth value. Furthermore, we reveal that facts with intra-memory conflict are harder to update with context, suggesting that retrieval-augmented generation will struggle with the most commonly adapted facts.

Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma et al.

Automating the fact checking (FC) process relies on information obtained from external sources. In this work, we posit that it is crucial for FC models to make veracity predictions only when there is sufficient evidence and otherwise indicate when it is not enough. To this end, we are the first to study what information FC models consider sufficient by introducing a novel task and advancing it with three main contributions. First, we conduct an in-depth empirical analysis of the task with a new fluency-preserving method for omitting information from the evidence at the constituent and sentence level. We identify when models consider the remaining evidence (in)sufficient for FC, based on three trained models with different Transformer architectures and three FC datasets. Second, we ask annotators whether the omitted evidence was important for FC, resulting in a novel diagnostic dataset, SufficientFacts, for FC with omitted evidence. We find that models are least successful in detecting missing evidence when adverbial modifiers are omitted (21% accuracy), whereas it is easiest for omitted date modifiers (63% accuracy). Finally, we propose a novel data augmentation strategy for contrastive self-learning of missing evidence by employing the proposed omission method combined with tri-training. It improves performance for Evidence Sufficiency Prediction by up to 17.8 F1 score, which in turn improves FC performance by up to 2.6 F1 score.

Sekh Mainul Islam, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) describe how Large Language Models (LLMs) make decisions, drawing on both external Context Knowledge (CK) and Parametric Knowledge (PK) stored in model weights. Understanding their interaction is key to assessing the grounding of NLEs, yet it remains underexplored. Prior work has largely examined only single-step generation, typically the final answer, and has modelled PK and CK interaction only as a binary choice in a rank-1 subspace. This overlooks richer forms of interaction, such as complementary or supportive knowledge. We propose a novel rank-2 projection subspace that disentangles PK and CK contributions more accurately and use it for the first multi-step analysis of knowledge interactions across longer NLE sequences. Experiments on four QA datasets and three open-weight instruction-tuned LLMs show that diverse knowledge interactions are poorly represented in a rank-1 subspace but are effectively captured in our rank-2 formulation. Our multi-step analysis reveals that hallucinated NLEs align strongly with the PK direction, context-faithful ones balance PK and CK, and Chain-of-Thought prompting for NLEs shifts generated NLEs toward CK by reducing PK reliance. This work provides the first framework for systematic studies of multi-step knowledge interactions in LLMs through a richer rank-2 subspace disentanglement. Code and data: https://github.com/copenlu/pk-ck-knowledge-disentanglement.

Sagnik Ray Choudhury, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Reasoning over spans of tokens from different parts of the input is essential for natural language understanding (NLU) tasks such as fact-checking (FC), machine reading comprehension (MRC) or natural language inference (NLI). However, existing highlight-based explanations primarily focus on identifying individual important tokens or interactions only between adjacent tokens or tuples of tokens. Most notably, there is a lack of annotations capturing the human decision-making process w.r.t. the necessary interactions for informed decision-making in such tasks. To bridge this gap, we introduce SpanEx, a multi-annotator dataset of human span interaction explanations for two NLU tasks: NLI and FC. We then investigate the decision-making processes of multiple fine-tuned large language models in terms of the employed connections between spans in separate parts of the input and compare them to the human reasoning processes. Finally, we present a novel community detection based unsupervised method to extract such interaction explanations from a model's inner workings.

Jingyi Sun, Qianli Wang, Pepa Atanasova et al.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) faithfulness, i.e., whether CoTs genuinely reflect large language models' (LLM) underlying behavior, is typically evaluated under two disjoint paradigms: contextual faithfulness, measured by perturbing the input or CoT trace, and parametric faithfulness, assessed by intervening on a model's parametric knowledge. Yet prior work compares them only descriptively. We fill this gap by proposing FaithMate, a unified preference-alignment interface for optimizing models towards either faithfulness paradigm. It enables us to investigate the interplay between the two paradigms, examining whether and to what extent faithfulness gains generalize within and across paradigms. Across three models, two datasets, and six faithfulness metrics, we find that the two paradigms are positively coupled, yet asymmetric: optimizing towards parametric faithfulness yields consistent gains across both paradigms, whereas the contextual counterpart delivers more variable gains. Within the contextual paradigm, faithfulness gains on one metric do not consistently transfer to others, implying that existing contextual metrics capture disjoint facets of faithfulness and exposing inherent trade-offs. These findings imply that CoT faithfulness is not a monolithic objective and therefore requires multifaceted optimization and evaluation.

Pepa Atanasova

A major concern of Machine Learning (ML) models is their opacity. They are deployed in an increasing number of applications where they often operate as black boxes that do not provide explanations for their predictions. Among others, the potential harms associated with the lack of understanding of the models' rationales include privacy violations, adversarial manipulations, and unfair discrimination. As a result, the accountability and transparency of ML models have been posed as critical desiderata by works in policy and law, philosophy, and computer science. In computer science, the decision-making process of ML models has been studied by developing accountability and transparency methods. Accountability methods, such as adversarial attacks and diagnostic datasets, expose vulnerabilities of ML models that could lead to malicious manipulations or systematic faults in their predictions. Transparency methods explain the rationales behind models' predictions gaining the trust of relevant stakeholders and potentially uncovering mistakes and unfairness in models' decisions. To this end, transparency methods have to meet accountability requirements as well, e.g., being robust and faithful to the underlying rationales of a model. This thesis presents my research that expands our collective knowledge in the areas of accountability and transparency of ML models developed for complex reasoning tasks over text.

Qianli Wang, Nils Feldhus, Pepa Atanasova et al.

Quantization is widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs), yet its effects on self-explanations (SEs) remain unexplored. SEs, generated by LLMs to justify their own outputs, require reasoning about the model's own decision-making process, a capability that may exhibit particular sensitivity to quantization. As SEs are increasingly relied upon for transparency in high-stakes applications, understanding whether and to what extent quantization degrades SE quality and faithfulness is critical. To address this gap, we examine two types of SEs: natural language explanations (NLEs) and counterfactual examples, generated by LLMs quantized using three common techniques at distinct bit widths. Our findings indicate that quantization typically leads to moderate declines in both SE quality (up to 4.4\%) and faithfulness (up to 2.38\%). The user study further demonstrates that quantization diminishes both the coherence and trustworthiness of SEs (up to 8.5\%). Compared to smaller models, larger models show limited resilience to quantization in terms of SE quality but better maintain faithfulness. Moreover, no quantization technique consistently excels across task accuracy, SE quality, and faithfulness. Given that quantization's impact varies by context, we recommend validating SE quality for specific use cases, especially for NLEs, which show greater sensitivity. Nonetheless, the relatively minor deterioration in SE quality and faithfulness does not undermine quantization's effectiveness as a model compression technique.

Haeun Yu, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Language Models (LMs) acquire parametric knowledge from their training process, embedding it within their weights. The increasing scalability of LMs, however, poses significant challenges for understanding a model's inner workings and further for updating or correcting this embedded knowledge without the significant cost of retraining. This underscores the importance of unveiling exactly what knowledge is stored and its association with specific model components. Instance Attribution (IA) and Neuron Attribution (NA) offer insights into this training-acquired knowledge, though they have not been compared systematically. Our study introduces a novel evaluation framework to quantify and compare the knowledge revealed by IA and NA. To align the results of the methods we introduce the attribution method NA-Instances to apply NA for retrieving influential training instances, and IA-Neurons to discover important neurons of influential instances discovered by IA. We further propose a comprehensive list of faithfulness tests to evaluate the comprehensiveness and sufficiency of the explanations provided by both methods. Through extensive experiments and analysis, we demonstrate that NA generally reveals more diverse and comprehensive information regarding the LM's parametric knowledge compared to IA. Nevertheless, IA provides unique and valuable insights into the LM's parametric knowledge, which are not revealed by NA. Our findings further suggest the potential of a synergistic approach of combining the diverse findings of IA and NA for a more holistic understanding of an LM's parametric knowledge.

Lovisa Hagström, Sara Vera Marjanović, Haeun Yu et al.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) helps address the limitations of parametric knowledge embedded within a language model (LM). In real world settings, retrieved information can vary in complexity, yet most investigations of LM utilisation of context has been limited to synthetic text. We introduce DRUID (Dataset of Retrieved Unreliable, Insufficient and Difficult-to-understand contexts) with real-world queries and contexts manually annotated for stance. The dataset is based on the prototypical task of automated claim verification, for which automated retrieval of real-world evidence is crucial. We compare DRUID to synthetic datasets (CounterFact, ConflictQA) and find that artificial datasets often fail to represent the complexity and diversity of realistically retrieved context. We show that synthetic datasets exaggerate context characteristics rare in real retrieved data, which leads to inflated context utilisation results, as measured by our novel ACU score. Moreover, while previous work has mainly focused on singleton context characteristics to explain context utilisation, correlations between singleton context properties and ACU on DRUID are surprisingly small compared to other properties related to context source. Overall, our work underscores the need for real-world aligned context utilisation studies to represent and improve performance in real-world RAG settings.

Shuzhou Yuan, Jingyi Sun, Ran Zhang et al.

Natural language explanations (NLEs) are commonly used to provide plausible free-text explanations of a model's reasoning about its predictions. However, recent work has questioned their faithfulness, as they may not accurately reflect the model's internal reasoning process regarding its predicted answer. In contrast, highlight explanations--input fragments critical for the model's predicted answers--exhibit measurable faithfulness. Building on this foundation, we propose G-Tex, a Graph-Guided Textual Explanation Generation framework designed to enhance the faithfulness of NLEs. Specifically, highlight explanations are first extracted as faithful cues reflecting the model's reasoning logic toward answer prediction. They are subsequently encoded through a graph neural network layer to guide the NLE generation, which aligns the generated explanations with the model's underlying reasoning toward the predicted answer. Experiments on T5 and BART using three reasoning datasets show that G-Tex improves NLE faithfulness by up to 12.18% compared to baseline methods. Additionally, G-Tex generates NLEs with greater semantic and lexical similarity to human-written ones. Human evaluations show that G-Tex can decrease redundant content and enhance the overall quality of NLEs. Our work presents a novel method for explicitly guiding NLE generation to enhance faithfulness, serving as a foundation for addressing broader criteria in NLE and generated text.

Yingming Wang, Pepa Atanasova

With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) have become increasingly important for understanding model predictions. However, these explanations often fail to faithfully represent the model's actual reasoning process. While existing work has demonstrated that LLMs can self-critique and refine their initial outputs for various tasks, this capability remains unexplored for improving explanation faithfulness. To address this gap, we introduce Self-critique and Refinement for Natural Language Explanations (SR-NLE), a framework that enables models to improve the faithfulness of their own explanations -- specifically, post-hoc NLEs -- through an iterative critique and refinement process without external supervision. Our framework leverages different feedback mechanisms to guide the refinement process, including natural language self-feedback and, notably, a novel feedback approach based on feature attribution that highlights important input words. Our experiments across three datasets and four state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate that SR-NLE significantly reduces unfaithfulness rates, with our best method achieving an average unfaithfulness rate of 36.02%, compared to 54.81% for baseline -- an absolute reduction of 18.79%. These findings reveal that the investigated LLMs can indeed refine their explanations to better reflect their actual reasoning process, requiring only appropriate guidance through feedback without additional training or fine-tuning.

Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, Pepa Atanasova, Anna Rogers

The rapid adoption of AI across diverse domains has led to the development of organisational guidelines that vary significantly, even within the same sector. This paper examines AI policies in two domains, news organisations and universities, to understand how bottom-up governance approaches shape AI usage and oversight. By analysing these policies, we identify key areas of convergence and divergence in how organisations address risks such as bias, privacy, misinformation, and accountability. We then explore the implications of these findings for international AI legislation, particularly the EU AI Act, highlighting gaps where practical policy insights could inform regulatory refinements. Our analysis reveals that organisational policies often address issues such as AI literacy, disclosure practices, and environmental impact, areas that are underdeveloped in existing international frameworks. We argue that lessons from domain-specific AI policies can contribute to more adaptive and effective AI governance at the global level. This study provides actionable recommendations for policymakers seeking to bridge the gap between local AI practices and international regulations.

Jingyi Sun, Pepa Atanasova, Sagnik Ray Choudhury et al.

Context utilisation, the ability of Language Models (LMs) to incorporate relevant information from the provided context when generating responses, remains largely opaque to users, who cannot determine whether models draw from parametric memory or provided context, nor identify which specific context pieces inform the response. Highlight explanations (HEs) offer a natural solution as they can point the exact context pieces and tokens that influenced model outputs. However, no existing work evaluates their effectiveness in accurately explaining context utilisation. We address this gap by introducing the first gold standard HE evaluation framework for context attribution, using controlled test cases with known ground-truth context usage, which avoids the limitations of existing indirect proxy evaluations. To demonstrate the framework's broad applicability, we evaluate four HE methods -- three established techniques and MechLight, a mechanistic interpretability approach we adapt for this task -- across four context scenarios, four datasets, and five LMs. Overall, we find that MechLight performs best across all context scenarios. However, all methods struggle with longer contexts and exhibit positional biases, pointing to fundamental challenges in explanation accuracy that require new approaches to deliver reliable context utilisation explanations at scale.

Jingyi Sun, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Explaining the decision-making process of machine learning models is crucial for ensuring their reliability and transparency for end users. One popular explanation form highlights key input features, such as i) tokens (e.g., Shapley Values and Integrated Gradients), ii) interactions between tokens (e.g., Bivariate Shapley and Attention-based methods), or iii) interactions between spans of the input (e.g., Louvain Span Interactions). However, these explanation types have only been studied in isolation, making it difficult to judge their respective applicability. To bridge this gap, we develop a unified framework that facilitates an automated and direct comparison between highlight and interactive explanations comprised of four diagnostic properties. We conduct an extensive analysis across these three types of input feature explanations -- each utilizing three different explanation techniques -- across two datasets and two models, and reveal that each explanation has distinct strengths across the different diagnostic properties. Nevertheless, interactive span explanations outperform other types of input feature explanations across most diagnostic properties. Despite being relatively understudied, our analysis underscores the need for further research to improve methods generating these explanation types. Additionally, integrating them with other explanation types that perform better in certain characteristics could further enhance their overall effectiveness.

Pepa Atanasova, Oana-Maria Camburu, Christina Lioma et al.

Explanations of neural models aim to reveal a model's decision-making process for its predictions. However, recent work shows that current methods giving explanations such as saliency maps or counterfactuals can be misleading, as they are prone to present reasons that are unfaithful to the model's inner workings. This work explores the challenging question of evaluating the faithfulness of natural language explanations (NLEs). To this end, we present two tests. First, we propose a counterfactual input editor for inserting reasons that lead to counterfactual predictions but are not reflected by the NLEs. Second, we reconstruct inputs from the reasons stated in the generated NLEs and check how often they lead to the same predictions. Our tests can evaluate emerging NLE models, proving a fundamental tool in the development of faithful NLEs.

Shailza Jolly, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Fact-checking systems have become important tools to verify fake and misguiding news. These systems become more trustworthy when human-readable explanations accompany the veracity labels. However, manual collection of such explanations is expensive and time-consuming. Recent works frame explanation generation as extractive summarization, and propose to automatically select a sufficient subset of the most important facts from the ruling comments (RCs) of a professional journalist to obtain fact-checking explanations. However, these explanations lack fluency and sentence coherence. In this work, we present an iterative edit-based algorithm that uses only phrase-level edits to perform unsupervised post-editing of disconnected RCs. To regulate our editing algorithm, we use a scoring function with components including fluency and semantic preservation. In addition, we show the applicability of our approach in a completely unsupervised setting. We experiment with two benchmark datasets, LIAR-PLUS and PubHealth. We show that our model generates explanations that are fluent, readable, non-redundant, and cover important information for the fact check.

Tamer Elsayed, Preslav Nakov, Alberto Barrón-Cedeño et al.

We present an overview of the second edition of the CheckThat! Lab at CLEF 2019. The lab featured two tasks in two different languages: English and Arabic. Task 1 (English) challenged the participating systems to predict which claims in a political debate or speech should be prioritized for fact-checking. Task 2 (Arabic) asked to (A) rank a given set of Web pages with respect to a check-worthy claim based on their usefulness for fact-checking that claim, (B) classify these same Web pages according to their degree of usefulness for fact-checking the target claim, (C) identify useful passages from these pages, and (D) use the useful pages to predict the claim's factuality. CheckThat! provided a full evaluation framework, consisting of data in English (derived from fact-checking sources) and Arabic (gathered and annotated from scratch) and evaluation based on mean average precision (MAP) and normalized discounted cumulative gain (nDCG) for ranking, and F1 for classification. A total of 47 teams registered to participate in this lab, and fourteen of them actually submitted runs (compared to nine last year). The evaluation results show that the most successful approaches to Task 1 used various neural networks and logistic regression. As for Task 2, learning-to-rank was used by the highest scoring runs for subtask A, while different classifiers were used in the other subtasks. We release to the research community all datasets from the lab as well as the evaluation scripts, which should enable further research in the important tasks of check-worthiness estimation and automatic claim verification.

Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma et al.

Explanations shed light on a machine learning model's rationales and can aid in identifying deficiencies in its reasoning process. Explanation generation models are typically trained in a supervised way given human explanations. When such annotations are not available, explanations are often selected as those portions of the input that maximise a downstream task's performance, which corresponds to optimising an explanation's Faithfulness to a given model. Faithfulness is one of several so-called diagnostic properties, which prior work has identified as useful for gauging the quality of an explanation without requiring annotations. Other diagnostic properties are Data Consistency, which measures how similar explanations are for similar input instances, and Confidence Indication, which shows whether the explanation reflects the confidence of the model. In this work, we show how to directly optimise for these diagnostic properties when training a model to generate sentence-level explanations, which markedly improves explanation quality, agreement with human rationales, and downstream task performance on three complex reasoning tasks.

Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma et al.

Recent developments in machine learning have introduced models that approach human performance at the cost of increased architectural complexity. Efforts to make the rationales behind the models' predictions transparent have inspired an abundance of new explainability techniques. Provided with an already trained model, they compute saliency scores for the words of an input instance. However, there exists no definitive guide on (i) how to choose such a technique given a particular application task and model architecture, and (ii) the benefits and drawbacks of using each such technique. In this paper, we develop a comprehensive list of diagnostic properties for evaluating existing explainability techniques. We then employ the proposed list to compare a set of diverse explainability techniques on downstream text classification tasks and neural network architectures. We also compare the saliency scores assigned by the explainability techniques with human annotations of salient input regions to find relations between a model's performance and the agreement of its rationales with human ones. Overall, we find that the gradient-based explanations perform best across tasks and model architectures, and we present further insights into the properties of the reviewed explainability techniques.

Pepa Atanasova, Dustin Wright, Isabelle Augenstein

Adversarial attacks reveal important vulnerabilities and flaws of trained models. One potent type of attack are universal adversarial triggers, which are individual n-grams that, when appended to instances of a class under attack, can trick a model into predicting a target class. However, for inference tasks such as fact checking, these triggers often inadvertently invert the meaning of instances they are inserted in. In addition, such attacks produce semantically nonsensical inputs, as they simply concatenate triggers to existing samples. Here, we investigate how to generate adversarial attacks against fact checking systems that preserve the ground truth meaning and are semantically valid. We extend the HotFlip attack algorithm used for universal trigger generation by jointly minimising the target class loss of a fact checking model and the entailment class loss of an auxiliary natural language inference model. We then train a conditional language model to generate semantically valid statements, which include the found universal triggers. We find that the generated attacks maintain the directionality and semantic validity of the claim better than previous work.

Wojciech Ostrowski, Arnav Arora, Pepa Atanasova et al.

Recent work has proposed multi-hop models and datasets for studying complex natural language reasoning. One notable task requiring multi-hop reasoning is fact checking, where a set of connected evidence pieces leads to the final verdict of a claim. However, existing datasets either do not provide annotations for gold evidence pages, or the only dataset which does (FEVER) mostly consists of claims which can be fact-checked with simple reasoning and is constructed artificially. Here, we study more complex claim verification of naturally occurring claims with multiple hops over interconnected evidence chunks. We: 1) construct a small annotated dataset, PolitiHop, of evidence sentences for claim verification; 2) compare it to existing multi-hop datasets; and 3) study how to transfer knowledge from more extensive in- and out-of-domain resources to PolitiHop. We find that the task is complex and achieve the best performance with an architecture that specifically models reasoning over evidence pieces in combination with in-domain transfer learning.

Marcos Zampieri, Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal et al.

We present the results and main findings of SemEval-2020 Task 12 on Multilingual Offensive Language Identification in Social Media (OffensEval 2020). The task involves three subtasks corresponding to the hierarchical taxonomy of the OLID schema (Zampieri et al., 2019a) from OffensEval 2019. The task featured five languages: English, Arabic, Danish, Greek, and Turkish for Subtask A. In addition, English also featured Subtasks B and C. OffensEval 2020 was one of the most popular tasks at SemEval-2020 attracting a large number of participants across all subtasks and also across all languages. A total of 528 teams signed up to participate in the task, 145 teams submitted systems during the evaluation period, and 70 submitted system description papers.

Sara Rosenthal, Pepa Atanasova, Georgi Karadzhov et al.

The widespread use of offensive content in social media has led to an abundance of research in detecting language such as hate speech, cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression. Recent work presented the OLID dataset, which follows a taxonomy for offensive language identification that provides meaningful information for understanding the type and the target of offensive messages. However, it is limited in size and it might be biased towards offensive language as it was collected using keywords. In this work, we present SOLID, an expanded dataset, where the tweets were collected in a more principled manner. SOLID contains over nine million English tweets labeled in a semi-supervised fashion. We demonstrate that using SOLID along with OLID yields sizable performance gains on the OLID test set for two different models, especially for the lower levels of the taxonomy.

Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma et al.

Most existing work on automated fact checking is concerned with predicting the veracity of claims based on metadata, social network spread, language used in claims, and, more recently, evidence supporting or denying claims. A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process -- generating justifications for verdicts on claims. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context, and how this task can be modelled jointly with veracity prediction. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system. The results of a manual evaluation further suggest that the informativeness, coverage and overall quality of the generated explanations are also improved in the multi-task model.

Luna De Bruyne, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Emotion lexica are commonly used resources to combat data poverty in automatic emotion detection. However, vocabulary coverage issues, differences in construction method and discrepancies in emotion framework and representation result in a heterogeneous landscape of emotion detection resources, calling for a unified approach to utilising them. To combat this, we present an extended emotion lexicon of 30,273 unique entries, which is a result of merging eight existing emotion lexica by means of a multi-view variational autoencoder (VAE). We showed that a VAE is a valid approach for combining lexica with different label spaces into a joint emotion label space with a chosen number of dimensions, and that these dimensions are still interpretable. We tested the utility of the unified VAE lexicon by employing the lexicon values as features in an emotion detection model. We found that the VAE lexicon outperformed individual lexica, but contrary to our expectations, it did not outperform a naive concatenation of lexica, although it did contribute to the naive concatenation when added as an extra lexicon. Furthermore, using lexicon information as additional features on top of state-of-the-art language models usually resulted in a better performance than when no lexicon information was used.

Slavena Vasileva, Pepa Atanasova, Lluís Màrquez et al.

We propose a multi-task deep-learning approach for estimating the check-worthiness of claims in political debates. Given a political debate, such as the 2016 US Presidential and Vice-Presidential ones, the task is to predict which statements in the debate should be prioritized for fact-checking. While different fact-checking organizations would naturally make different choices when analyzing the same debate, we show that it pays to learn from multiple sources simultaneously (PolitiFact, FactCheck, ABC, CNN, NPR, NYT, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and Washington Post) in a multi-task learning setup, even when a particular source is chosen as a target to imitate. Our evaluation shows state-of-the-art results on a standard dataset for the task of check-worthiness prediction.

Pepa Atanasova, Preslav Nakov, Lluís Màrquez et al.

We study the problem of automatic fact-checking, paying special attention to the impact of contextual and discourse information. We address two related tasks: (i) detecting check-worthy claims, and (ii) fact-checking claims. We develop supervised systems based on neural networks, kernel-based support vector machines, and combinations thereof, which make use of rich input representations in terms of discourse cues and contextual features. For the check-worthiness estimation task, we focus on political debates, and we model the target claim in the context of the full intervention of a participant and the previous and the following turns in the debate, taking into account contextual meta information. For the fact-checking task, we focus on answer verification in a community forum, and we model the veracity of the answer with respect to the entire question--answer thread in which it occurs as well as with respect to other related posts from the entire forum. We develop annotated datasets for both tasks and we run extensive experimental evaluation, confirming that both types of information ---but especially contextual features--- play an important role.

Tsvetomila Mihaylova, Georgi Karadjov, Pepa Atanasova et al.

We present SemEval-2019 Task 8 on Fact Checking in Community Question Answering Forums, which features two subtasks. Subtask A is about deciding whether a question asks for factual information vs. an opinion/advice vs. just socializing. Subtask B asks to predict whether an answer to a factual question is true, false or not a proper answer. We received 17 official submissions for subtask A and 11 official submissions for Subtask B. For subtask A, all systems improved over the majority class baseline. For Subtask B, all systems were below a majority class baseline, but several systems were very close to it. The leaderboard and the data from the competition can be found at http://competitions.codalab.org/competitions/20022

Pepa Atanasova, Georgi Karadzhov, Yasen Kiprov et al.

In recent years, the proliferation of smart mobile devices has lead to the gradual integration of search functionality within mobile platforms. This has created an incentive to move away from the "ten blue links'' metaphor, as mobile users are less likely to click on them, expecting to get the answer directly from the snippets. In turn, this has revived the interest in Question Answering. Then, along came chatbots, conversational systems, and messaging platforms, where the user needs could be better served with the system asking follow-up questions in order to better understand the user's intent. While typically a user would expect a single response at any utterance, a system could also return multiple options for the user to select from, based on different system understandings of the user's intent. However, this possibility should not be overused, as this practice could confuse and/or annoy the user. How to produce good variable-length lists, given the conflicting objectives of staying short while maximizing the likelihood of having a correct answer included in the list, is an underexplored problem. It is also unclear how to evaluate a system that tries to do that. Here we aim to bridge this gap. In particular, we define some necessary and some optional properties that an evaluation measure fit for this purpose should have. We further show that existing evaluation measures from the IR tradition are not entirely suitable for this setup, and we propose novel evaluation measures that address it satisfactorily.

Pepa Atanasova, Alberto Barron-Cedeno, Tamer Elsayed et al.

We present an overview of the CLEF-2018 CheckThat! Lab on Automatic Identification and Verification of Political Claims, with focus on Task 1: Check-Worthiness. The task asks to predict which claims in a political debate should be prioritized for fact-checking. In particular, given a debate or a political speech, the goal was to produce a ranked list of its sentences based on their worthiness for fact checking. We offered the task in both English and Arabic, based on debates from the 2016 US Presidential Campaign, as well as on some speeches during and after the campaign. A total of 30 teams registered to participate in the Lab and seven teams actually submitted systems for Task~1. The most successful approaches used by the participants relied on recurrent and multi-layer neural networks, as well as on combinations of distributional representations, on matchings claims' vocabulary against lexicons, and on measures of syntactic dependency. The best systems achieved mean average precision of 0.18 and 0.15 on the English and on the Arabic test datasets, respectively. This leaves large room for further improvement, and thus we release all datasets and the scoring scripts, which should enable further research in check-worthiness estimation.