Analysing the differences in how events are represented across texts, or verifying whether the language model generations hallucinate, requires the ability to systematically compare their content. To support such comparison, structured representation that captures fine-grained information plays a vital role.In particular, identifying distinct atomic facts and the discourse relations connecting them enables deeper semantic comparison. Our proposed approach combines structured discourse information extraction with a classifier, FDSpotter, for factual consistency verification. We show that adversarial discourse relations pose challenges for language models, but fine-tuning on our annotated data, DiscInfer, achieves competitive performance. Our proposed approach advances factual consistency verification by grounding in linguistic structure and decomposing it into interpretable components. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method on the evaluation of two tasks: data-to-text generation and text summarisation. Our code and dataset will be publicly available on GitHub.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous in today’s technological landscape, boasting a plethora of applications, and even endangering human jobs in complex and creative fields. One such field is journalism: LLMs are being used for summarization, generation and even fact-checking. However, in today’s political landscape, LLMs could accentuate tensions if they exhibit political bias. In this work, we evaluate the political bias of the most used 15 multilingual LLMs via the Political Compass Test. We test different scenarios, where we vary the language of the prompt, while also assigning a nationality to the model. We evaluate models on the 50 most populous countries and their official languages. Our results indicate that language has a strong influence on the political ideology displayed by a model. In addition, smaller models tend to display a more stable political ideology, i.e. ideology that is less affected by variations in the prompt.

Significant efforts have been made in the NLP community to facilitate the automatic analysis of climate-related corpora by tasks such as climate-related topic detection, climate risk classification, question answering over climate topics, and many more. In this work, we perform a reproducibility study on 8 tasks and 29 datasets, testing 6 models. We find that many tasks rely heavily on surface-level keyword patterns rather than deeper semantic or contextual understanding. Moreover, we find that 96% of the datasets contain annotation issues, with 16.6% of the sampled wrong predictions of a zero-shot classifier being actually clear annotation mistakes, and 38.8% being ambiguous examples.These results call into question the reliability of current benchmarks to meaningfully compare models and highlight the need for improved annotation practices. We conclude by outlining actionable recommendations to enhance dataset quality and evaluation robustness.

Open Information Extraction (OIE) is the task of extracting tuples of the form (subject, predicate, object), without any knowledge of the type and lexical form of the predicate, the subject, or the object. In this work, we focus on improving OIE quality by exploiting domain knowledge about the subject and object. More precisely, knowing that the subjects and objects in sentences are oftentimes named entities, we explore how to inject constraints in the extraction through constrained inference and constraint-aware training. Our work leverages the state-of-the-art OpenIE6 platform, which we adapt to our setting. Through a carefully constructed training dataset and constrained training, we obtain a 29.17% F1-score improvement in the CaRB metric and a 24.37% F1-score improvement in the WIRe57 metric. Our technique has important applications – one of them is investigative journalism, where automatically extracting conflict-of-interest between scientists and funding organizations helps understand the type of relations companies engage with the scientists.

Graph-to-text (G2T) generation takes a graph as input and aims to generate a fluent and faith- ful textual representation of the information in the graph. The task has many applications, such as dialogue generation and question an- swering. In this work, we investigate to what extent the G2T generation problem is solved for previously studied datasets, and how pro- posed metrics perform when comparing generated texts. To help address their limitations, we propose a new metric that correctly identifies factual faithfulness, i.e., given a triple (subject, predicate, object), it decides if the triple is present in a generated text. We show that our metric FactSpotter achieves the highest correlation with human annotations on data correct- ness, data coverage, and relevance. In addition, FactSpotter can be used as a plug-in feature to improve the factual faithfulness of existing models. Finally, we investigate if existing G2T datasets are still challenging for state-of-the-art models. Our code is available online: https://github.com/guihuzhang/FactSpotter.

People debate on a variety of topics on online platforms such as Reddit, or Facebook. Debates can be lengthy, with users exchanging a wealth of information and opinions. However, conversations do not always go smoothly, and users sometimes engage in unsound argumentation techniques to prove a claim. These techniques are called fallacies. Fallacies are persuasive arguments that provide insufficient or incorrect evidence to support the claim. In this paper, we study the most frequent fallacies on Reddit, and we present them using the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. We construct a new annotated dataset of fallacies, using user comments containing fallacy mentions as noisy labels, and cleaning the data via crowdsourcing. Finally, we study the task of classifying fallacies using neural models. We find that generally the models perform better in the presence of conversational context. We have released the data and the code at github.com/sahaisaumya/informal_fallacies.

Political discussions revolve around ideological conflicts that often split the audience into two opposing parties. Both parties try to win the argument by bringing forward information. However, often this information is misleading, and its dissemination employs propaganda techniques. In this work, we analyze the impact of propaganda on six major political forums on Reddit that target a diverse audience in two countries, the US and the UK. We focus on three research questions: who is posting propaganda? how does propaganda differ across the political spectrum? and how is propaganda received on political forums?

In this work, we revisit the functions of language proposed by linguist Roman Jakobson and we highlight their potential in analyzing online forum conversations. We investigate the relationship between functions and other properties of comments, such as controversiality. We propose and evaluate a semi-supervised framework for predicting the functions of Reddit comments. To accommodate further research, we release a corpus of 165K comments annotated with their functions of language.