Entity-Assisted Language Models for Identifying Check-worthy Sentences
This work addresses the challenge of automating fact-checking in political discourse, though it appears incremental as it builds on existing neural and KG embedding methods.
The authors tackled the problem of identifying check-worthy sentences in political debates by proposing a framework that combines neural language models with entity embeddings from knowledge graphs, achieving significant performance improvements over traditional methods like TF.IDF and LSTM, with ALBERT emerging as the most effective model.
We propose a new uniform framework for text classification and ranking that can automate the process of identifying check-worthy sentences in political debates and speech transcripts. Our framework combines the semantic analysis of the sentences, with additional entity embeddings obtained through the identified entities within the sentences. In particular, we analyse the semantic meaning of each sentence using state-of-the-art neural language models such as BERT, ALBERT, and RoBERTa, while embeddings for entities are obtained from knowledge graph (KG) embedding models. Specifically, we instantiate our framework using five different language models, entity embeddings obtained from six different KG embedding models, as well as two combination methods leading to several Entity-Assisted neural language models. We extensively evaluate the effectiveness of our framework using two publicly available datasets from the CLEF' 2019 & 2020 CheckThat! Labs. Our results show that the neural language models significantly outperform traditional TF.IDF and LSTM methods. In addition, we show that the ALBERT model is consistently the most effective model among all the tested neural language models. Our entity embeddings significantly outperform other existing approaches from the literature that are based on similarity and relatedness scores between the entities in a sentence, when used alongside a KG embedding.