{"title":"The Choice of Textual Knowledge Base in Automated Claim Checking","authors":"Dominik Stammbach, Boya Zhang, Elliott Ash","doi":"10.1145/3561389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Automated claim checking is the task of determining the veracity of a claim given evidence retrieved from a textual knowledge base of trustworthy facts. While previous work has taken the knowledge base as given and optimized the claim-checking pipeline, we take the opposite approach—taking the pipeline as given, we explore the choice of the knowledge base. Our first insight is that a claim-checking pipeline can be transferred to a new domain of claims with access to a knowledge base from the new domain. Second, we do not find a “universally best” knowledge base—higher domain overlap of a task dataset and a knowledge base tends to produce better label accuracy. Third, combining multiple knowledge bases does not tend to improve performance beyond using the closest-domain knowledge base. Finally, we show that the claim-checking pipeline’s confidence score for selecting evidence can be used to assess whether a knowledge base will perform well for a new set of claims, even in the absence of ground-truth labels.","PeriodicalId":44355,"journal":{"name":"ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality","volume":"40 1","pages":"1 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3561389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Automated claim checking is the task of determining the veracity of a claim given evidence retrieved from a textual knowledge base of trustworthy facts. While previous work has taken the knowledge base as given and optimized the claim-checking pipeline, we take the opposite approach—taking the pipeline as given, we explore the choice of the knowledge base. Our first insight is that a claim-checking pipeline can be transferred to a new domain of claims with access to a knowledge base from the new domain. Second, we do not find a “universally best” knowledge base—higher domain overlap of a task dataset and a knowledge base tends to produce better label accuracy. Third, combining multiple knowledge bases does not tend to improve performance beyond using the closest-domain knowledge base. Finally, we show that the claim-checking pipeline’s confidence score for selecting evidence can be used to assess whether a knowledge base will perform well for a new set of claims, even in the absence of ground-truth labels.