Misinformation emerges in times of uncertainty when credible information is limited. This is challenging for NLP-based fact-checking as it relies on counter-evidence, which may not yet be available. Despite increasing interest in automatic fact-checking, it is still unclear if automated approaches can realistically refute harmful real-world misinformation. Here, we contrast and compare NLP fact-checking with how professional fact-checkers combat misinformation in the absence of counter-evidence. In our analysis, we show that, by design, existing NLP task definitions for fact-checking cannot refute misinformation as professional fact-checkers do for the majority of claims. We then define two requirements that the evidence in datasets must fulfill for realistic fact-checking: It must be (1) sufficient to refute the claim and (2) not leaked from existing fact-checking articles. We survey existing fact-checking datasets and find that all of them fail to satisfy both criteria. Finally, we perform experiments to demonstrate that models trained on a large-scale fact-checking dataset rely on leaked evidence, which makes them unsuitable in real-world scenarios. Taken together, we show that current NLP fact-checking cannot realistically combat real-world misinformation because it depends on unrealistic assumptions about counter-evidence in the data.
相關內容
As a successful approach to self-supervised learning, contrastive learning aims to learn invariant information shared among distortions of the input sample. While contrastive learning has yielded continuous advancements in sampling strategy and architecture design, it still remains two persistent defects: the interference of task-irrelevant information and sample inefficiency, which are related to the recurring existence of trivial constant solutions. From the perspective of dimensional analysis, we find out that the dimensional redundancy and dimensional confounder are the intrinsic issues behind the phenomena, and provide experimental evidence to support our viewpoint. We further propose a simple yet effective approach MetaMask, short for the dimensional Mask learned by Meta-learning, to learn representations against dimensional redundancy and confounder. MetaMask adopts the redundancy-reduction technique to tackle the dimensional redundancy issue and innovatively introduces a dimensional mask to reduce the gradient effects of specific dimensions containing the confounder, which is trained by employing a meta-learning paradigm with the objective of improving the performance of masked representations on a typical self-supervised task. We provide solid theoretical analyses to prove MetaMask can obtain tighter risk bounds for downstream classification compared to typical contrastive methods. Empirically, our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on various benchmarks.
We investigate whether three types of post hoc model explanations--feature attribution, concept activation, and training point ranking--are effective for detecting a model's reliance on spurious signals in the training data. Specifically, we consider the scenario where the spurious signal to be detected is unknown, at test-time, to the user of the explanation method. We design an empirical methodology that uses semi-synthetic datasets along with pre-specified spurious artifacts to obtain models that verifiably rely on these spurious training signals. We then provide a suite of metrics that assess an explanation method's reliability for spurious signal detection under various conditions. We find that the post hoc explanation methods tested are ineffective when the spurious artifact is unknown at test-time especially for non-visible artifacts like a background blur. Further, we find that feature attribution methods are susceptible to erroneously indicating dependence on spurious signals even when the model being explained does not rely on spurious artifacts. This finding casts doubt on the utility of these approaches, in the hands of a practitioner, for detecting a model's reliance on spurious signals.
We put forth new models for universal channel coding. Unlike standard codes which are designed for a specific type of channel, our most general universal code makes communication resilient on every channel, provided the noise level is below the tolerated bound, where the noise level t of a channel is the logarithm of its ambiguity (the maximum number of strings that can be distorted into a given one). The other more restricted universal codes still work for large classes of natural channels. In a universal code, encoding is channel-independent, but the decoding function knows the type of channel. We allow the encoding and the decoding functions to share randomness, which is unavailable to the channel. There are two scenarios for the type of attack that a channel can perform. In the oblivious scenario, codewords belong to an additive group and the channel distorts a codeword by adding a vector from a fixed set. The selection is based on the message and the encoding function, but not on the codeword. In the Hamming scenario, the channel knows the codeword and is fully adversarial. For a universal code, there are two parameters of interest: the rate, which is the ratio between the message length k and the codeword length n, and the number of shared random bits. We show the existence in both scenarios of universal codes with rate 1-t/n - o(1), which is optimal modulo the o(1) term. The number of shared random bits is O(log n) in the oblivious scenario, and O(n) in the Hamming scenario, which, for typical values of the noise level, we show to be optimal, modulo the constant hidden in the O() notation. In both scenarios, the universal encoding is done in time polynomial in n, but the channel-dependent decoding procedures are in general not efficient. For some weaker classes of channels we construct universal codes with polynomial-time encoding and decoding.
As spatial audio is enjoying a surge in popularity, data-driven machine learning techniques that have been proven successful in other domains are increasingly used to process head-related transfer function measurements. However, these techniques require much data, whereas the existing datasets are ranging from tens to the low hundreds of datapoints. It therefore becomes attractive to combine multiple of these datasets, although they are measured under different conditions. In this paper, we first establish the common ground between a number of datasets, then we investigate potential pitfalls of mixing datasets. We perform a simple experiment to test the relevance of the remaining differences between datasets when applying machine learning techniques. Finally, we pinpoint the most relevant differences.
Counterfactuals are often described as 'retrospective,' focusing on hypothetical alternatives to a realized past. This description relates to an often implicit assumption about the structure and stability of exogenous variables in the system being modeled -- an assumption that is reasonable in many settings where counterfactuals are used. In this work, we consider cases where we might reasonably make a different assumption about exogenous variables, namely, that the exogenous noise terms of each unit do exhibit some unit-specific structure and/or stability. This leads us to a different use of counterfactuals -- a 'forward-looking' rather than 'retrospective' counterfactual. We introduce "counterfactual treatment choice," a type of treatment choice problem that motivates using forward-looking counterfactuals. We then explore how mismatches between interventional versus forward-looking counterfactual approaches to treatment choice, consistent with different assumptions about exogenous noise, can lead to counterintuitive results.
Existing techniques for training language models can be misaligned with the truth: if we train models with imitation learning, they may reproduce errors that humans make; if we train them to generate text that humans rate highly, they may output errors that human evaluators can't detect. We propose circumventing this issue by directly finding latent knowledge inside the internal activations of a language model in a purely unsupervised way. Specifically, we introduce a method for accurately answering yes-no questions given only unlabeled model activations. It works by finding a direction in activation space that satisfies logical consistency properties, such as that a statement and its negation have opposite truth values. We show that despite using no supervision and no model outputs, our method can recover diverse knowledge represented in large language models: across 6 models and 10 question-answering datasets, it outperforms zero-shot accuracy by 4\% on average. We also find that it cuts prompt sensitivity in half and continues to maintain high accuracy even when models are prompted to generate incorrect answers. Our results provide an initial step toward discovering what language models know, distinct from what they say, even when we don't have access to explicit ground truth labels.
Current pre-trained language models have enabled remarkable improvements in downstream tasks, but it remains difficult to distinguish effects of statistical correlation from more systematic logical reasoning grounded on understanding of the real world. In this paper we tease these factors apart by leveraging counterfactual conditionals, which force language models to predict unusual consequences based on hypothetical propositions. We introduce a set of tests drawn from psycholinguistic experiments, as well as larger-scale controlled datasets, to probe counterfactual predictions from a variety of popular pre-trained language models. We find that models are consistently able to override real-world knowledge in counterfactual scenarios, and that this effect is more robust in case of stronger baseline world knowledge -- however, we also find that for most models this effect appears largely to be driven by simple lexical cues. When we mitigate effects of both world knowledge and lexical cues to test knowledge of linguistic nuances of counterfactuals, we find that only GPT-3 shows sensitivity to these nuances, though this sensitivity is also non-trivially impacted by lexical associative factors.
In recent years, Graph Neural Networks have reported outstanding performance in tasks like community detection, molecule classification and link prediction. However, the black-box nature of these models prevents their application in domains like health and finance, where understanding the models' decisions is essential. Counterfactual Explanations (CE) provide these understandings through examples. Moreover, the literature on CE is flourishing with novel explanation methods which are tailored to graph learning. In this survey, we analyse the existing Graph Counterfactual Explanation methods, by providing the reader with an organisation of the literature according to a uniform formal notation for definitions, datasets, and metrics, thus, simplifying potential comparisons w.r.t to the method advantages and disadvantages. We discussed seven methods and sixteen synthetic and real datasets providing details on the possible generation strategies. We highlight the most common evaluation strategies and formalise nine of the metrics used in the literature. We first introduce the evaluation framework GRETEL and how it is possible to extend and use it while providing a further dimension of comparison encompassing reproducibility aspects. Finally, we provide a discussion on how counterfactual explanation interplays with privacy and fairness, before delving into open challenges and future works.
We present a novel counterfactual framework for both Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) and Open-Set Recognition (OSR), whose common challenge is generalizing to the unseen-classes by only training on the seen-classes. Our idea stems from the observation that the generated samples for unseen-classes are often out of the true distribution, which causes severe recognition rate imbalance between the seen-class (high) and unseen-class (low). We show that the key reason is that the generation is not Counterfactual Faithful, and thus we propose a faithful one, whose generation is from the sample-specific counterfactual question: What would the sample look like, if we set its class attribute to a certain class, while keeping its sample attribute unchanged? Thanks to the faithfulness, we can apply the Consistency Rule to perform unseen/seen binary classification, by asking: Would its counterfactual still look like itself? If ``yes'', the sample is from a certain class, and ``no'' otherwise. Through extensive experiments on ZSL and OSR, we demonstrate that our framework effectively mitigates the seen/unseen imbalance and hence significantly improves the overall performance. Note that this framework is orthogonal to existing methods, thus, it can serve as a new baseline to evaluate how ZSL/OSR models generalize. Codes are available at //github.com/yue-zhongqi/gcm-cf.
Reinforcement learning (RL) is a popular paradigm for addressing sequential decision tasks in which the agent has only limited environmental feedback. Despite many advances over the past three decades, learning in many domains still requires a large amount of interaction with the environment, which can be prohibitively expensive in realistic scenarios. To address this problem, transfer learning has been applied to reinforcement learning such that experience gained in one task can be leveraged when starting to learn the next, harder task. More recently, several lines of research have explored how tasks, or data samples themselves, can be sequenced into a curriculum for the purpose of learning a problem that may otherwise be too difficult to learn from scratch. In this article, we present a framework for curriculum learning (CL) in reinforcement learning, and use it to survey and classify existing CL methods in terms of their assumptions, capabilities, and goals. Finally, we use our framework to find open problems and suggest directions for future RL curriculum learning research.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191