Paper detail

Aggregating Pairwise Semantic Differences for Few-Shot Claim Veracity Classification

As part of an automated fact-checking pipeline, the claim veracity classification task consists in determining if a claim is supported by an associated piece of evidence. The complexity of gathering labelled claim-evidence pairs leads to a scarcity of datasets, particularly when dealing with new domains. In this paper, we introduce SEED, a novel vector-based method to few-shot claim veracity classification that aggregates pairwise semantic differences for claim-evidence pairs. We build on the hypothesis that we can simulate class representative vectors that capture average semantic differences for claim-evidence pairs in a class, which can then be used for classification of new instances. We compare the performance of our method with competitive baselines including fine-tuned BERT/RoBERTa models, as well as the state-of-the-art few-shot veracity classification method that leverages language model perplexity. Experiments conducted on the FEVER and SCIFACT datasets show consistent improvements over competitive baselines in few-shot settings. Our code is available.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.