带有解释的事实不一致分类的神经模型

Tathagata Raha, Mukund Choudhary, Abhinav Menon, Harshit Gupta, KV Aditya Srivatsa, Manish Gupta, Vasudeva Varma
{"title":"带有解释的事实不一致分类的神经模型","authors":"Tathagata Raha, Mukund Choudhary, Abhinav Menon, Harshit Gupta, KV Aditya Srivatsa, Manish Gupta, Vasudeva Varma","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2306.08872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Factual consistency is one of the most important requirements when editing high quality documents. It is extremely important for automatic text generation systems like summarization, question answering, dialog modeling, and language modeling. Still, automated factual inconsistency detection is rather under-studied. Existing work has focused on (a) finding fake news keeping a knowledge base in context, or (b) detecting broad contradiction (as part of natural language inference literature). However, there has been no work on detecting and explaining types of factual inconsistencies in text, without any knowledge base in context. In this paper, we leverage existing work in linguistics to formally define five types of factual inconsistencies. Based on this categorization, we contribute a novel dataset, FICLE (Factual Inconsistency CLassification with Explanation), with ~8K samples where each sample consists of two sentences (claim and context) annotated with type and span of inconsistency. When the inconsistency relates to an entity type, it is labeled as well at two levels (coarse and fine-grained). Further, we leverage this dataset to train a pipeline of four neural models to predict inconsistency type with explanations, given a (claim, context) sentence pair. Explanations include inconsistent claim fact triple, inconsistent context span, inconsistent claim component, coarse and fine-grained inconsistent entity types. The proposed system first predicts inconsistent spans from claim and context; and then uses them to predict inconsistency types and inconsistent entity types (when inconsistency is due to entities). We experiment with multiple Transformer-based natural language classification as well as generative models, and find that DeBERTa performs the best. Our proposed methods provide a weighted F1 of ~87% for inconsistency type classification across the five classes.","PeriodicalId":74091,"journal":{"name":"Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases : European Conference, ECML PKDD ... : proceedings. ECML PKDD (Conference)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neural models for Factual Inconsistency Classification with Explanations\",\"authors\":\"Tathagata Raha, Mukund Choudhary, Abhinav Menon, Harshit Gupta, KV Aditya Srivatsa, Manish Gupta, Vasudeva Varma\",\"doi\":\"10.48550/arXiv.2306.08872\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Factual consistency is one of the most important requirements when editing high quality documents. It is extremely important for automatic text generation systems like summarization, question answering, dialog modeling, and language modeling. Still, automated factual inconsistency detection is rather under-studied. Existing work has focused on (a) finding fake news keeping a knowledge base in context, or (b) detecting broad contradiction (as part of natural language inference literature). However, there has been no work on detecting and explaining types of factual inconsistencies in text, without any knowledge base in context. In this paper, we leverage existing work in linguistics to formally define five types of factual inconsistencies. Based on this categorization, we contribute a novel dataset, FICLE (Factual Inconsistency CLassification with Explanation), with ~8K samples where each sample consists of two sentences (claim and context) annotated with type and span of inconsistency. When the inconsistency relates to an entity type, it is labeled as well at two levels (coarse and fine-grained). Further, we leverage this dataset to train a pipeline of four neural models to predict inconsistency type with explanations, given a (claim, context) sentence pair. Explanations include inconsistent claim fact triple, inconsistent context span, inconsistent claim component, coarse and fine-grained inconsistent entity types. The proposed system first predicts inconsistent spans from claim and context; and then uses them to predict inconsistency types and inconsistent entity types (when inconsistency is due to entities). We experiment with multiple Transformer-based natural language classification as well as generative models, and find that DeBERTa performs the best. Our proposed methods provide a weighted F1 of ~87% for inconsistency type classification across the five classes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74091,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases : European Conference, ECML PKDD ... : proceedings. ECML PKDD (Conference)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases : European Conference, ECML PKDD ... : proceedings. ECML PKDD (Conference)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.08872\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases : European Conference, ECML PKDD ... : proceedings. ECML PKDD (Conference)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.08872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

事实一致性是编辑高质量文档时最重要的要求之一。它对于自动文本生成系统(如摘要、问答、对话建模和语言建模)非常重要。尽管如此,自动化的事实不一致检测还没有得到充分的研究。现有的工作集中在(a)发现假新闻,保持知识库在上下文中,或(b)发现广泛的矛盾(作为自然语言推理文献的一部分)。然而,在没有上下文知识基础的情况下,还没有关于检测和解释文本中事实不一致类型的工作。在本文中,我们利用语言学现有的工作,正式定义五种类型的事实不一致。基于这种分类,我们贡献了一个新的数据集,FICLE(事实不一致分类与解释),有大约8K个样本,每个样本由两个句子(声明和上下文)组成,并标注了不一致的类型和范围。当不一致性与实体类型相关时,它也被标记为两个级别(粗粒度和细粒度)。此外,我们利用该数据集来训练一个由四个神经模型组成的管道,以预测给定(声明,上下文)句子对的解释不一致类型。解释包括不一致的索赔事实三重、不一致的上下文范围、不一致的索赔组件、粗粒度和细粒度不一致的实体类型。提出的系统首先从权利要求和上下文预测不一致的跨度;然后使用它们来预测不一致类型和不一致实体类型(当不一致是由实体引起的时候)。我们对多个基于transformer的自然语言分类以及生成模型进行了实验,发现DeBERTa表现最好。我们提出的方法为跨五个类的不一致类型分类提供了约87%的加权F1。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Neural models for Factual Inconsistency Classification with Explanations
Factual consistency is one of the most important requirements when editing high quality documents. It is extremely important for automatic text generation systems like summarization, question answering, dialog modeling, and language modeling. Still, automated factual inconsistency detection is rather under-studied. Existing work has focused on (a) finding fake news keeping a knowledge base in context, or (b) detecting broad contradiction (as part of natural language inference literature). However, there has been no work on detecting and explaining types of factual inconsistencies in text, without any knowledge base in context. In this paper, we leverage existing work in linguistics to formally define five types of factual inconsistencies. Based on this categorization, we contribute a novel dataset, FICLE (Factual Inconsistency CLassification with Explanation), with ~8K samples where each sample consists of two sentences (claim and context) annotated with type and span of inconsistency. When the inconsistency relates to an entity type, it is labeled as well at two levels (coarse and fine-grained). Further, we leverage this dataset to train a pipeline of four neural models to predict inconsistency type with explanations, given a (claim, context) sentence pair. Explanations include inconsistent claim fact triple, inconsistent context span, inconsistent claim component, coarse and fine-grained inconsistent entity types. The proposed system first predicts inconsistent spans from claim and context; and then uses them to predict inconsistency types and inconsistent entity types (when inconsistency is due to entities). We experiment with multiple Transformer-based natural language classification as well as generative models, and find that DeBERTa performs the best. Our proposed methods provide a weighted F1 of ~87% for inconsistency type classification across the five classes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Explaining Full-disk Deep Learning Model for Solar Flare Prediction using Attribution Methods Offline Reinforcement Learning with On-Policy Q-Function Regularization Visualizing Overlapping Biclusterings and Boolean Matrix Factorizations An Examination of Wearable Sensors and Video Data Capture for Human Exercise Classification Online Network Source Optimization with Graph-Kernel MAB
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1