Existing datasets for automated fact-checking have substantial limitations, such as relying on artificial claims, lacking annotations for evidence and intermediate reasoning, or including evidence published after the claim. In this paper we introduce AVeriTeC, a new dataset of 4,568 real-world claims covering fact-checks by 50 different organizations. Each claim is annotated with question-answer pairs supported by evidence available online, as well as textual justifications explaining how the evidence combines to produce a verdict. Through a multi-round annotation process, we avoid common pitfalls including context dependence, evidence insufficiency, and temporal leakage, and reach a substantial inter-annotator agreement of $\kappa=0.619$ on verdicts. We develop a baseline as well as an evaluation scheme for verifying claims through several question-answering steps against the open web.

Fact verification systems assess a claim's veracity based on evidence. An important consideration in designing them is faithfulness, i.e. generating explanations that accurately reflect the reasoning of the model. Recent works have focused on natural logic, which operates directly on natural language by capturing the semantic relation of spans between an aligned claim with its evidence via set-theoretic operators. However, these approaches rely on substantial resources for training, which are only available for high-resource languages. To this end, we propose to use question answering to predict natural logic operators, taking advantage of the generalization capabilities of instruction-tuned language models. Thus, we obviate the need for annotated training data while still relying on a deterministic inference system. In a few-shot setting on FEVER, our approach outperforms the best baseline by $4.3$ accuracy points, including a state-of-the-art pre-trained seq2seq natural logic system, as well as a state-of-the-art prompt-based classifier. Our system demonstrates its robustness and portability, achieving competitive performance on a counterfactual dataset and surpassing all approaches without further annotation on a Danish verification dataset. A human evaluation indicates that our approach produces more plausible proofs with fewer erroneous natural logic operators than previous natural logic-based systems.

Recent research on argumentative dialogues has focused on persuading people to take some action, changing their stance on the topic of discussion, or winning debates. In this work, we focus on argumentative dialogues that aim to open up (rather than change) people's minds to help them become more understanding to views that are unfamiliar or in opposition to their own convictions. To this end, we present a dataset of 183 argumentative dialogues about 3 controversial topics: veganism, Brexit and COVID-19 vaccination. The dialogues were collected using the Wizard of Oz approach, where wizards leverage a knowledge-base of arguments to converse with participants. Open-mindedness is measured before and after engaging in the dialogue using a questionnaire from the psychology literature, and success of the dialogue is measured as the change in the participant's stance towards those who hold opinions different to theirs. We evaluate two dialogue models: a Wikipedia-based and an argument-based model. We show that while both models perform closely in terms of opening up minds, the argument-based model is significantly better on other dialogue properties such as engagement and clarity.

Despite strong performance in many sequence-to-sequence tasks, autoregressive models trained with maximum likelihood estimation suffer from exposure bias, i.e. the discrepancy between the ground-truth prefixes used during training and the model-generated prefixes used at inference time. Scheduled sampling is a simple and empirically successful approach which addresses this issue by incorporating model-generated prefixes into training. However, it has been argued that it is an inconsistent training objective leading to models ignoring the prefixes altogether. In this paper, we conduct systematic experiments and find that scheduled sampling, while it ameliorates exposure bias by increasing model reliance on the input sequence, worsens performance when the prefix at inference time is correct, a form of catastrophic forgetting. We propose to use Elastic Weight Consolidation to better balance mitigating exposure bias with retaining performance. Experiments on four IWSLT'14 and WMT'14 translation datasets demonstrate that our approach alleviates catastrophic forgetting and significantly outperforms maximum likelihood estimation and scheduled sampling baselines.

Disagreements are frequently studied from the perspective of either detecting toxicity or analysing argument structure. We propose a framework of dispute tactics that unifies these two perspectives, as well as other dialogue acts which play a role in resolving disputes, such as asking questions and providing clarification. This framework includes a preferential ordering among rebuttal-type tactics, ranging from ad hominem attacks to refuting the central argument. Using this framework, we annotate 213 disagreements (3,865 utterances) from Wikipedia Talk pages. This allows us to investigate research questions around the tactics used in disagreements; for instance, we provide empirical validation of the approach to disagreement recommended by Wikipedia. We develop models for multilabel prediction of dispute tactics in an utterance, achieving the best performance with a transformer-based label powerset model. Adding an auxiliary task to incorporate the ordering of rebuttal tactics further yields a statistically significant increase. Finally, we show that these annotations can be used to provide useful additional signals to improve performance on the task of predicting escalation.

A key component of fact verification is thevevidence retrieval, often from multiple documents. Recent approaches use dense representations and condition the retrieval of each document on the previously retrieved ones. The latter step is performed over all the documents in the collection, requiring storing their dense representations in an index, thus incurring a high memory footprint. An alternative paradigm is retrieve-and-rerank, where documents are retrieved using methods such as BM25, their sentences are reranked, and further documents are retrieved conditioned on these sentences, reducing the memory requirements. However, such approaches can be brittle as they rely on heuristics and assume hyperlinks between documents. We propose a novel retrieve-and-rerank method for multi-hop retrieval, that consists of a retriever that jointly scores documents in the knowledge source and sentences from previously retrieved documents using an autoregressive formulation and is guided by a proof system based on natural logic that dynamically terminates the retrieval process if the evidence is deemed sufficient. This method is competitive with current state-of-the-art methods on FEVER, HoVer and FEVEROUS-S, while using $5$ to $10$ times less memory than competing systems. Evaluation on an adversarial dataset indicates improved stability of our approach compared to commonly deployed threshold-based methods. Finally, the proof system helps humans predict model decisions correctly more often than using the evidence alone.

People leverage group discussions to collaborate in order to solve complex tasks, e.g. in project meetings or hiring panels. By doing so, they engage in a variety of conversational strategies where they try to convince each other of the best approach and ultimately reach a decision. In this work, we investigate methods for detecting what makes someone change their mind. To this end, we leverage a recently introduced dataset containing group discussions of people collaborating to solve a task. To find out what makes someone change their mind, we incorporate various techniques such as neural text classification and language-agnostic change point detection. Evaluation of these methods shows that while the task is not trivial, the best way to approach it is using a language-aware model with learning-to-rank training. Finally, we examine the cues that the models develop as indicative of the cause of a change of mind.

Dialogue systems research is traditionally focused on dialogues between two interlocutors, largely ignoring group conversations. Moreover, most previous research is focused either on task-oriented dialogue (e.g.\ restaurant bookings) or user engagement (chatbots), while research on systems for collaborative dialogues is an under-explored area. To this end, we introduce the first publicly available dataset containing collaborative conversations on solving a cognitive task, consisting of 500 group dialogues and 14k utterances. Furthermore, we propose a novel annotation schema that captures deliberation cues and release 50 dialogues annotated with it. Finally, we demonstrate the usefulness of the annotated data in training classifiers to predict the constructiveness of a conversation. The data collection platform, dataset and annotated corpus are publicly available at https://delibot.xyz

Claim verification is the task of predicting the veracity of written statements against evidence. Previous large-scale datasets model the task as classification, ignoring the need to retrieve evidence, or are constructed for research purposes, and may not be representative of real-world needs. In this paper, we introduce a novel claim verification dataset with instances derived from search-engine queries, yielding 10,987 claims annotated with evidence that represent real-world information needs. For each claim, we annotate evidence from full Wikipedia articles with both section and sentence-level granularity. Our annotation allows comparison between two complementary approaches to verification: stance classification, and evidence extraction followed by entailment recognition. In our comprehensive evaluation, we find no significant difference in accuracy between these two approaches. This enables systems to use evidence extraction to summarize a rationale for an end-user while maintaining the accuracy when predicting a claim's veracity. With challenging claims and evidence documents containing hundreds of sentences, our dataset presents interesting challenges that are not captured in previous work -- evidenced through transfer learning experiments. We release code and data to support further research on this task.

Disagreements are pervasive in human communication. In this paper we investigate what makes disagreement constructive. To this end, we construct WikiDisputes, a corpus of 7 425 Wikipedia Talk page conversations that contain content disputes, and define the task of predicting whether disagreements will be escalated to mediation by a moderator. We evaluate feature-based models with linguistic markers from previous work, and demonstrate that their performance is improved by using features that capture changes in linguistic markers throughout the conversations, as opposed to averaged values. We develop a variety of neural models and show that taking into account the structure of the conversation improves predictive accuracy, exceeding that of feature-based models. We assess our best neural model in terms of both predictive accuracy and uncertainty by evaluating its behaviour when it is only exposed to the beginning of the conversation, finding that model accuracy improves and uncertainty reduces as models are exposed to more information.