搜索结果：Claim

In the context of fact-checking, claims are often repeated across various platforms and in different languages, which can benefit from a process that reduces this redundancy. While retrieving previously fact-checked claims has been investigated as a solution, the growing number of unverified claims and expanding size of fact-checked databases calls for alternative, more efficient solutions. A promising solution is to group claims that discuss the same underlying facts into clusters to improve claim retrieval and validation. However, research on claim clustering is hindered by the lack of suitable datasets. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textit{MultiClaimNet}, a collection of three multilingual claim cluster datasets containing claims in 86 languages across diverse topics. Claim clusters are formed automatically from claim-matching pairs with limited manual intervention. We leverage two existing claim-matching datasets to form the smaller datasets within \textit{MultiClaimNet}. To build the larger dataset, we propose and validate an approach involving retrieval of approximate nearest neighbors to form candidate claim pairs and an automated annotation of claim similarity using lar

Verifiable claim detection asks whether a claim expresses a factual statement that can, in principle, be assessed against external evidence. As an early filtering stage in automated fact-checking, it plays an important role in reducing the burden on downstream verification components. However, existing approaches to claim detection, whether based on check-worthiness or verifiability, rely solely on the claim text itself. This is a notable limitation for verifiable claim detection in particular, where determining whether a claim is checkable may benefit from knowing what entities and events it refers to and whether relevant information exists to support verification. Inspired by the established role of evidence retrieval in later-stage claim verification, we propose Context-Driven Claim Detection (ContextClaim), a paradigm that advances retrieval to the detection stage. ContextClaim extracts entity mentions from the input claim, retrieves relevant information from Wikipedia as a structured knowledge source, and employs large language models to produce concise contextual summaries for downstream classification. We evaluate ContextClaim on two datasets covering different topics and te

Outstanding claim liabilities are revised repeatedly as claims develop, yet most modern reserving models are trained as one-shot predictors and typically learn only from settled claims. We formulate individual claims reserving as a claim-level Markov decision process in which an agent sequentially updates outstanding claim liability (OCL) estimates over development, using continuous actions and a reward design that balances accuracy with stable reserve revisions. A key advantage of this reinforcement learning (RL) approach is that it can learn from all observed claim trajectories, including claims that remain open at valuation, thereby avoiding the reduced sample size and selection effects inherent in supervised methods trained on ultimate outcomes only. We also introduce practical components needed for actuarial use -- initialisation of new claims, temporally consistent tuning via a rolling-settlement scheme, and an importance-weighting mechanism to mitigate portfolio-level underestimation driven by the rarity of large claims. On CAS and SPLICE synthetic general insurance datasets, the proposed Soft Actor-Critic implementation delivers competitive claim-level accuracy and strong a

Recurrent claims present a major challenge for automated fact-checking systems designed to combat misinformation, especially in multilingual settings. While tasks such as claim matching and fact-checked claim retrieval aim to address this problem by linking claim pairs, the broader challenge of effectively representing groups of similar claims that can be resolved with the same fact-check via claim clustering remains relatively underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce Claim2Vec, the first multilingual embedding model optimized to represent fact-check claims as vectors in an improved semantic embedding space. We fine-tune a multilingual encoder using contrastive learning with similar multilingual claim pairs. Experiments on the claim clustering task using three datasets, 14 multilingual embedding models, and 7 clustering algorithms demonstrate that Claim2Vec significantly improves clustering performance. Specifically, it enhances both cluster label alignment and the geometric structure of the embedding space across different cluster configurations. Our multilingual analysis shows that clusters containing multiple languages benefit from fine-tuning, demonstrating cross-lingua

Verifying scientific claims presents a significantly greater challenge than verifying political or news-related claims. Unlike the relatively broad audience for political claims, the users of scientific claim verification systems can vary widely, ranging from researchers testing specific hypotheses to everyday users seeking information on a medication. Additionally, the evidence for scientific claims is often highly complex, involving technical terminology and intricate domain-specific concepts that require specialized models for accurate verification. Despite considerable interest from the research community, there is a noticeable lack of large-scale scientific claim verification datasets to benchmark and train effective models. To bridge this gap, we introduce two large-scale datasets, SciClaimHunt and SciClaimHunt_Num, derived from scientific research papers. We propose several baseline models tailored for scientific claim verification to assess the effectiveness of these datasets. Additionally, we evaluate models trained on SciClaimHunt and SciClaimHunt_Num against existing scientific claim verification datasets to gauge their quality and reliability. Furthermore, we conduct hu

Structured claim decomposition is often proposed as a solution for verifying complex, multi-faceted claims, yet empirical results have been inconsistent. We argue that these inconsistencies stem from two overlooked bottlenecks: evidence alignment and sub-claim error profiles. To better understand these factors, we introduce a new dataset of real-world complex claims, featuring temporally bounded evidence and human-annotated sub-claim evidence spans. We evaluate decomposition under two evidence alignment setups: Sub-claim Aligned Evidence (SAE) and Repeated Claim-level Evidence (SRE). Our results reveal that decomposition brings significant performance improvement only when evidence is granular and strictly aligned. By contrast, standard setups that rely on repeated claim-level evidence (SRE) fail to improve and often degrade performance as shown across different datasets and domains (PHEMEPlus, MMM-Fact, COVID-Fact). Furthermore, we demonstrate that in the presence of noisy sub-claim labels, the nature of the error ends up determining downstream robustness. We find that conservative "abstention" significantly reduces error propagation compared to aggressive but incorrect prediction

We study the problem of allocating a finite estate among agents whose total claims exceed the available resources, a standard framework in the theory of claims problems. Two canonical rules embody competing fairness ideals: the Proportional rule allocates in proportion to claims, while the Constrained Equal Awards (CEA) rule equalizes awards as much as possible subject to claim-boundedness. We introduce the P-CEA family of compromise rules, which assigns each agent a fixed baseline award, capped by her claim, and distributes the remaining estate proportionally to residual claims. By varying the baseline parameter, this family generates a continuum of allocation rules that interpolates between the Proportional and CEA benchmarks. We provide an axiomatic characterization based on two threshold-dependent principles: No Advantageous Reallocation, which prevents agents with claims above the threshold from benefiting through coordinated claim redistribution that preserves the threshold condition, and Sustainable Lower Bound, which guarantees each agent at least the minimum of her claim and the threshold. We further develop a dual analysis that reallocates losses instead of awards and cha

A common strategy for fact-checking long-form content generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is extracting simple claims that can be verified independently. Since inaccurate or incomplete claims compromise fact-checking results, ensuring claim quality is critical. However, the lack of a standardized evaluation framework impedes assessment and comparison of claim extraction methods. To address this gap, we propose a framework for evaluating claim extraction in the context of fact-checking along with automated, scalable, and replicable methods for applying this framework, including novel approaches for measuring coverage and decontextualization. We also introduce Claimify, an LLM-based claim extraction method, and demonstrate that it outperforms existing methods under our evaluation framework. A key feature of Claimify is its ability to handle ambiguity and extract claims only when there is high confidence in the correct interpretation of the source text.

Claim verification is a task that involves assessing the truthfulness of a given claim based on multiple evidence pieces. Using large language models (LLMs) for claim verification is a promising way. However, simply feeding all the evidence pieces to an LLM and asking if the claim is factual does not yield good results. The challenge lies in the noisy nature of both the evidence and the claim: evidence passages typically contain irrelevant information, with the key facts hidden within the context, while claims often convey multiple aspects simultaneously. To navigate this "noisy crowd" of information, we propose EACon (Evidence Abstraction and Claim Deconstruction), a framework designed to find key information within evidence and verify each aspect of a claim separately. EACon first finds keywords from the claim and employs fuzzy matching to select relevant keywords for each raw evidence piece. These keywords serve as a guide to extract and summarize critical information into abstracted evidence. Subsequently, EACon deconstructs the original claim into subclaims, which are then verified against both abstracted and raw evidence individually. We evaluate EACon using two open-source L

Fact-checking numerical claims is critical as the presence of numbers provide mirage of veracity despite being fake potentially causing catastrophic impacts on society. The prior works in automatic fact verification do not primarily focus on natural numerical claims. A typical human fact-checker first retrieves relevant evidence addressing the different numerical aspects of the claim and then reasons about them to predict the veracity of the claim. Hence, the search process of a human fact-checker is a crucial skill that forms the foundation of the verification process. Emulating a real-world setting is essential to aid in the development of automated methods that encompass such skills. However, existing benchmarks employ heuristic claim decomposition approaches augmented with weakly supervised web search to collect evidences for verifying claims. This sometimes results in less relevant evidences and noisy sources with temporal leakage rendering a less realistic retrieval setting for claim verification. Hence, we introduce QuanTemp++: a dataset consisting of natural numerical claims, an open domain corpus, with the corresponding relevant evidence for each claim. The evidences are c

Assessing scientific claims requires identifying, extracting, and reasoning with multimodal data expressed in information-rich figures in scientific literature. Despite the large body of work in scientific QA, figure captioning, and other multimodal reasoning tasks over chart-based data, there are no readily usable multimodal benchmarks that directly test claim verification abilities. To remedy this gap, we introduce a new benchmark MuSciClaims accompanied by diagnostics tasks. We automatically extract supported claims from scientific articles, which we manually perturb to produce contradicted claims. The perturbations are designed to test for a specific set of claim verification capabilities. We also introduce a suite of diagnostic tasks that help understand model failures. Our results show most vision-language models are poor (~0.3-0.5 F1), with even the best model only achieving 0.72 F1. They are also biased towards judging claims as supported, likely misunderstanding nuanced perturbations within the claims. Our diagnostics show models are bad at localizing correct evidence within figures, struggle with aggregating information across modalities, and often fail to understand basi

Selecting which claims to check is a time-consuming task for human fact-checkers, especially from documents consisting of multiple sentences and containing multiple claims. However, existing claim extraction approaches focus more on identifying and extracting claims from individual sentences, e.g., identifying whether a sentence contains a claim or the exact boundaries of the claim within a sentence. In this paper, we propose a method for document-level claim extraction for fact-checking, which aims to extract check-worthy claims from documents and decontextualise them so that they can be understood out of context. Specifically, we first recast claim extraction as extractive summarization in order to identify central sentences from documents, then rewrite them to include necessary context from the originating document through sentence decontextualisation. Evaluation with both automatic metrics and a fact-checking professional shows that our method is able to extract check-worthy claims from documents more accurately than previous work, while also improving evidence retrieval.

Patent claims define the scope of protection and establish the legal boundaries of an invention. Drafting these claims is a complex and time-consuming process that usually requires the expertise of skilled patent attorneys, which can form a large access barrier for many small enterprises. To solve these challenges, researchers have investigated the use of large language models (LLMs) for automating patent claim generation. However, existing studies highlight inconsistencies between automated evaluation metrics and human expert assessments. To bridge this gap, we introduce Patent-CE, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating patent claims. Patent-CE includes comparative claim evaluations annotated by patent experts, focusing on five key criteria: feature completeness, conceptual clarity, terminology consistency, logical linkage, and overall quality. Additionally, we propose PatClaimEval, a novel multi-dimensional evaluation method specifically designed for patent claims. Our experiments demonstrate that PatClaimEval achieves the highest correlation with human expert evaluations across all assessment criteria among all tested metrics. This research provides the groundwork for

Claim verification can be a challenging task. In this paper, we present a method to enhance the robustness and reasoning capabilities of automated claim verification through the extraction of short facts from evidence. Our novel approach, FactDetect, leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate concise factual statements from evidence and label these facts based on their semantic relevance to the claim and evidence. The generated facts are then combined with the claim and evidence. To train a lightweight supervised model, we incorporate a fact-detection task into the claim verification process as a multitasking approach to improve both performance and explainability. We also show that augmenting FactDetect in the claim verification prompt enhances performance in zero-shot claim verification using LLMs. Our method demonstrates competitive results in the supervised claim verification model by 15% on the F1 score when evaluated for challenging scientific claim verification datasets. We also demonstrate that FactDetect can be augmented with claim and evidence for zero-shot prompting (AugFactDetect) in LLMs for verdict prediction. We show that AugFactDetect outperforms the baselin

Recent studies investigated the challenge of assessing the strength of a given claim extracted from a dataset, particularly the claim's potential of being misleading and cherry-picked. We focus on claims that compare answers to an aggregate query posed on a view that selects tuples. The strength of a claim amounts to the question of how likely it is that the view is carefully chosen to support the claim, whereas less careful choices would lead to contradictory claims. We embark on the study of the reverse task that offers a complementary angle in the critical assessment of data-based claims: given a claim, find useful supporting views. The goal of this task is twofold. On the one hand, we aim to assist users in finding significant evidence of phenomena of interest. On the other hand, we wish to provide them with machinery to criticize or counter given claims by extracting evidence of opposing statements. To be effective, the supporting sub-population should be significant and defined by a ``natural'' view. We discuss several measures of naturalness and propose ways of extracting the best views under each measure (and combinations thereof). The main challenge is the computational co

In this paper, we explore the problem of Claim Extraction using one-to-many text generation methods, comparing LLMs, small summarization models finetuned for the task, and a previous NER-centric baseline QACG. As the current publications on Claim Extraction, Fact Extraction, Claim Generation and Check-worthy Claim Detection are quite scattered in their means and terminology, we compile their common objectives, releasing the FEVERFact dataset, with 17K atomic factual claims extracted from 4K contextualised Wikipedia sentences, adapted from the original FEVER. We compile the known objectives into an Evaluation framework of: Atomicity, Fluency, Decontextualization, Faithfulness checked for each generated claim separately, and Focus and Coverage measured against the full set of predicted claims for a single input. For each metric, we implement a scale using a reduction to an already-explored NLP task. We validate our metrics against human grading of generic claims, to see that the model ranking on $F_{fact}$, our hardest metric, did not change and the evaluation framework approximates human grading very closely in terms of $F_1$ and RMSE.

Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) relies on claim extraction as a first step, yet existing methods largely overlook the multimodal nature of today's misinformation. Social media posts often combine short, informal text with images such as memes, screenshots, and photos, creating challenges that differ from both text-only claim extraction and well-studied multimodal tasks like image captioning or visual question answering. In this work, we present the first benchmark for multimodal claim extraction from social media, consisting of posts containing text and one or more images, annotated with gold-standard claims derived from real-world fact-checkers. We evaluate state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) under a three-part evaluation framework (semantic alignment, faithfulness, and decontextualization) and find that baseline MLLMs struggle to model rhetorical intent and contextual cues. To address this, we introduce MICE, an intent-aware framework which shows improvements in intent-critical cases.

With the rise of social media, users are exposed to many misleading claims. However, the pervasive noise inherent in these posts presents a challenge in identifying precise and prominent claims that require verification. Extracting the important claims from such posts is arduous and time-consuming, yet it is an underexplored problem. Here, we aim to bridge this gap. We introduce a novel task, Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm), which aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms, termed normalized claims. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation, mimicking human reasoning processes, to comprehend intricate claims. Moreover, we capitalize on the in-context learning capabilities of large language models to provide guidance and to improve claim normalization. To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed model, we meticulously compile a comprehensive real-world dataset, CLAN, comprising more than 6k instances of social media posts alongside their respective normalized claims. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various

The explosive growth of online misinformation, such as false claims, has affected the social behavior of online users. In order to be persuasive and mislead the audience, false claims are made to trigger emotions in their audience. This paper contributes to understanding how misinformation in social media is shaped by investigating the emotional framing that authors of the claims try to create for their audience. We investigate how, firstly, the existence of emotional framing in the claims depends on the topic and credibility of the claims. Secondly, we explore how emotionally framed content triggers emotional response posts by social media users, and how emotions expressed in claims and corresponding users' response posts affect their sharing behavior on social media. Analysis of four data sets covering different topics (politics, health, Syrian war, and COVID-19) reveals that authors shape their claims depending on the topic area to pass targeted emotions to their audience. By analysing responses to claims, we show that the credibility of the claim influences the distribution of emotions that the claim incites in its audience. Moreover, our analysis shows that emotions expressed