Spreading of mis- and disinformation is growing and is having a big impact on interpersonal communications, politics and even science.
Traditional methods, e.g. manual fact-checking by reporters cannot keep up with the growth of information. On the other hand, there has been much progress in natural language processing recently, partly due to the resurgence of neural methods.
How can natural language processing methods fill this gap and help to automatically check facts?
This talk will explore different ways to frame fact checking and detail our ongoing work on learning to encode documents for automated fact checking, as well as describe future challenges.
Call Girls In Defence Colony Delhi 💯Call Us 🔝8264348440🔝
Learning to read for automated fact checking
1. Aarhus University
Department of Computer Science
Friday Lecture Series
17 November 2017
Isabelle Augenstein
augenstein@di.ku.dk
@IAugenstein
http://isabelleaugenstein.github.io/
Towards Automated
Fact Checking of
Claims Online
8. Types of False Information
• Disinformation:
• Intentionally false, spread deliberately
• Misinformation:
• Unintentionally false information
• Clickbait:
• Exaggerating information and under-delivering it
• Satire:
• Intentionally false for humorous purposes
• Biased Reporting:
• Reporting only some of the facts to serve an agenda
9. Types of False Information
• Disinformation:
• Intentionally false, spread deliberately
• Misinformation:
• Unintentionally false information
• Clickbait:
• Exaggerating information and under-delivering it
• Satire:
• Intentionally false for humorous purposes
• Biased Reporting:
• Reporting only some of the facts to serve an agenda
10. query
“Unemployment in the US is 42%”
Goal: Fact Checking
Machine
Reader
unemployment(US, 42%)
What is the stance of
HRC on immigration?
stance(HRC,
immigration, X)
15. Fully Automated Fact Checking
1) Given a claim, retrieve evidence documents for and
against it
2) Given evidence documents, find relevant
paragraphs/sentences in it
3) For claim and each evidence paragraph/sentence:
detect stance of paragraph/sentence towards a
claim/target
4) Balance and combine stance judgements (stance
judgements + trust of source)
5) Explain stance judgements
17/11/2017 15
16. Fully Automated Fact Checking
1) Given a claim, retrieve evidence documents for and
against it
2) Given evidence documents, find relevant
paragraphs/sentences in it
3) For claim and each evidence paragraph/sentence:
detect stance of paragraph/sentence towards a
claim/target
4) Balance and combine stance judgements (stance
judgements + trust of source)
5) Explain stance judgements
17/11/2017 16
18. Stance Detection with Conditional Encoding
No more #NastyWomen or #BadHombres
Task: Is tweet positive, negative or neutral towards a given
target (Donald Trump)?
Problems:
- Interpretation depends on target
- Target not always mentioned in tweet
- No training data for test target
SemEval 2016, EMNLP 2016
19. Stance Detection with Conditional Encoding
• Challenges
• Model:
Learn a model that interprets the tweet stance towards a target
that might not be mentioned in the tweet itself
• Training Data:
Learn model without labelled training data for the target with
respect to which we are predicting the stance
20. Stance Detection Model:
Sum of Word Embeddings
Legalization of Abortion A foetus has rights too !
Target Tweet
s(e)s(a)
g(x)Is tweet positive, negative
or neutral towards given
target?
21. Stance Detection Model: Concatenated
Sequence Representations
Legalization of Abortion A foetus has rights too !
Target Tweet
s(e)s(a)
g(x)Is tweet positive, negative
or neutral towards given
target?
22. Stance Detection Model:
Bidirectional Conditional Encoding
x1
c!
1
c1
h!
1
h1
x2
c!
2
c2
h!
2
h2
x3
c!
3
c3
h!
3
h3
x4
c!
4
c4
h!
4
h4
x5
c!
5
c5
h!
5
h5
x6
c!
6
c6
h!
6
h6
x7
c!
7
c7
h!
7
h7
x8
c!
8
c8
h!
8
h8
x9
c!
9
c9
h!
9
h9
Legalization of Abortion A foetus has rights too !
Target Tweet
igure 1: Bidirectional encoding of tweet conditioned on bidirectional encoding of target ([c!
3 c1 ]). The stance is predicted using
he last forward and reversed output representations ([h!
9 h4 ]).
23. Stance Detection with Conditional Encoding
• Challenges
• Training Data:
Learn model without labelled training data for the target with
respect to which we are predicting the stance
• Solution 1: use training data labelled for other targets (domain
adaptation setting)
• Solution 2: automatically label training data for target, using a small
set of manually defined hashtags (weakly labelled setting)
24. Stance Detection with Conditional Encoding
• Domain Adaptation Setting
• Train on Legalization of Abortion, Atheism, Feminist Movement,
Climate Change is a Real Concern and Hillary Clinton, evaluate on
Donald Trump tweets
Model Stance P R F1
FAVOR 0.3145 0.5270 0.3939
Concat AGAINST 0.4452 0.4348 0.4399
Macro 0.4169
FAVOR 0.3033 0.5470 0.3902
BiCond AGAINST 0.6788 0.5216 0.5899
Macro 0.4901
25. Stance Detection with Conditional Encoding
• Weakly Supervised Setting
• Weakly label Donald Trump tweets using hashtags / expressions,
evaluate on Donald Trump tweets
positive:
make( ?)america( ?)great( ?)again
trump( ?)(for|4)( ?)president
negative:
#dumptrump
#notrump
26. Stance Detection with Conditional Encoding
• Weakly Supervised Setting
• Weakly label Donald Trump tweets using hashtags / expressions,
evaluate on Donald Trump tweets
* state of the art on dataset
Model Stance P R F1
FAVOR 0.5506 0.5878 0.5686
Concat AGAINST 0.5794 0.4883 0.5299
Macro 0.5493
FAVOR 0.6268 0.6014 0.6138
BiCond AGAINST 0.6057 0.4983 0.5468
Macro 0.5803 *
27. Stance Detection with Conditional Encoding
• Conclusions
• Modelling sentence pair relationship is important
• Weak labelling of in-domain tweets even more important
• Partly due to small training data size here
• Learning sequence representations also a good approach for small
data
• State of the art on SemEval 2016 Stance Detection dataset
28. Stance Detection for Conversational Structures
SemEval 2017 RumourEval Task A (winning system), IP&M 2017 (under review)
29. Stance Detection for Conversational Structures
SemEval 2017 RumourEval Task A (winning system), IP&M 2017 (under review)
30. Stance Detection for Conversational Structures
SemEval 2017 RumourEval Task A (winning system), IP&M 2017 (under review)
31. Stance Detection for Conversational Structures
SemEval 2017 RumourEval Task A (winning system), IP&M 2017 (under review)
32. Example Rumours (10 in total, 2 of those only in test)
• Putin missing: from March 2015 - Russian president
Vladimir Putin did not appear in public for 10 days.
Rumours emerged he had been ill or killed. Denied by
Putin himself on 11th day.
• Gurlitt collection: from November 2014 - Bern
Museum of Fine Arts to accept a collection of
modernist masterpieces kept by the son of a Nazi-era
art dealer. Confirmed.
17/11/2017 32
Stance Detection for Conversational Structures
SemEval 2017 RumourEval Task A
33. Training data
17/11/2017 33
Stance Detection for Conversational Structures
Supporting Denying Querying Commenting
Development 69 11 28 173
Testing 94 71 106 778
Training 841 333 330 2734
SemEval 2017 RumourEval Task A
35. Examples misclassifying denying
[As querying] @username Weren’t you the one who abused
her?
[As supporting] ”Go online & put down ’Hillary Clinton
illness,’” Rudy says. Yes – but look up the truth – not health
smears https://t.co/EprqiZhAxM
[As supporting] @username I demand you retract the lie
that people in #Ferguson were shouting ”kill the police”, local
reporting has refuted your ugly racism
[As commenting] @FoxNews six years ago... real good
evidence. Not!
17/11/2017 35
Stance Detection for Conversational Structures
SemEval 2017 RumourEval Task A (winning system)
36. • Relationship between sequences can be modelled
effectively with deep neural models
• Even more complicated structures (conversational
threads) can be modelled effectively
• Many challenges
• Hard to collect data, especially with balanced labels
• Hard to train deep neural NLP models with little,
imbalanced data
• Predicted labels do not explain stance judgements
17/11/2017 36
Summary: Stance Detection
37. Thanks to my collaborators!
USDF: Diana Maynard, Andreas Vlachos, Kalina Bontcheva,
Michal Lukasik, Leon Derczynski
UCL: Sebastian Riedel, Tim Rocktäschel
ATI: Elena Kochkina, Maria Liakata
UCPH: Anders Søgaard, Joachim Bingel, Johannes Bjerva,
Mareike Hartmann
Plus Sebastian Ruder, Arkaitz Zubiaga, Rob Procter, Trevor
Cohn, ...
17/11/2017 37