对科学主张的忠实推理

N. Tan, Niket Tandon, David Wadden, Oyvind Tafjord, M. Gahegan, Michael Witbrock
{"title":"对科学主张的忠实推理","authors":"N. Tan, Niket Tandon, David Wadden, Oyvind Tafjord, M. Gahegan, Michael Witbrock","doi":"10.1609/aaaiss.v3i1.31209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Claim verification in scientific domains requires models that faithfully incorporate relevant knowledge from the ever-growing, vast existing literature. \nUnfaithful claim verifications can lead to misinformation such as those observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fact-checking systems often fail to capture the complex relationship between claims and evidence, especially with ambiguous claims and implicit assumptions. Relying only on current LLMs poses challenges due to hallucinations and information traceability issues. To address these challenges, our approach considers multiple viewpoints onto the scientific literature, enabling the assessment of contradictory arguments and implicit assumptions. Our proposed inference method adds faithful reasoning to large language models by distilling information from diverse, relevant scientific abstracts. This method provides a verdict label that can be weighted by the reputation of the scientific articles and an explanation that can be traced back to sources. Our findings demonstrate that humans not only perceive our explanation to be significantly superior to the off-the-shelf model, but they also evaluate it as faithfully enabling the tracing of evidence back to its original sources.","PeriodicalId":516827,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Faithful Reasoning over Scientific Claims\",\"authors\":\"N. Tan, Niket Tandon, David Wadden, Oyvind Tafjord, M. Gahegan, Michael Witbrock\",\"doi\":\"10.1609/aaaiss.v3i1.31209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Claim verification in scientific domains requires models that faithfully incorporate relevant knowledge from the ever-growing, vast existing literature. \\nUnfaithful claim verifications can lead to misinformation such as those observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fact-checking systems often fail to capture the complex relationship between claims and evidence, especially with ambiguous claims and implicit assumptions. Relying only on current LLMs poses challenges due to hallucinations and information traceability issues. To address these challenges, our approach considers multiple viewpoints onto the scientific literature, enabling the assessment of contradictory arguments and implicit assumptions. Our proposed inference method adds faithful reasoning to large language models by distilling information from diverse, relevant scientific abstracts. This method provides a verdict label that can be weighted by the reputation of the scientific articles and an explanation that can be traced back to sources. Our findings demonstrate that humans not only perceive our explanation to be significantly superior to the off-the-shelf model, but they also evaluate it as faithfully enabling the tracing of evidence back to its original sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1609/aaaiss.v3i1.31209\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1609/aaaiss.v3i1.31209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学领域的索赔验证要求模型能够忠实地纳入不断增长的大量现有文献中的相关知识。不忠实的声称验证可能会导致错误信息,例如在 COVID-19 大流行期间观察到的错误信息。事实核查系统往往无法捕捉到主张与证据之间的复杂关系,尤其是在主张模棱两可和隐含假设的情况下。由于幻觉和信息可追溯性问题,仅依靠当前的法律知识会带来挑战。为了应对这些挑战,我们的方法考虑了科学文献的多种观点,从而能够评估相互矛盾的论点和隐含假设。我们提出的推理方法通过从不同的相关科学摘要中提炼信息,为大型语言模型添加了忠实推理。该方法提供了一个可根据科学文章的声誉加权的判决标签,以及一个可追溯来源的解释。我们的研究结果表明,人类不仅认为我们的解释明显优于现成的模型,而且还认为我们的解释能够忠实地将证据追溯到其原始来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Faithful Reasoning over Scientific Claims
Claim verification in scientific domains requires models that faithfully incorporate relevant knowledge from the ever-growing, vast existing literature. Unfaithful claim verifications can lead to misinformation such as those observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fact-checking systems often fail to capture the complex relationship between claims and evidence, especially with ambiguous claims and implicit assumptions. Relying only on current LLMs poses challenges due to hallucinations and information traceability issues. To address these challenges, our approach considers multiple viewpoints onto the scientific literature, enabling the assessment of contradictory arguments and implicit assumptions. Our proposed inference method adds faithful reasoning to large language models by distilling information from diverse, relevant scientific abstracts. This method provides a verdict label that can be weighted by the reputation of the scientific articles and an explanation that can be traced back to sources. Our findings demonstrate that humans not only perceive our explanation to be significantly superior to the off-the-shelf model, but they also evaluate it as faithfully enabling the tracing of evidence back to its original sources.
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信