Knowledge graphs play a pivotal role in various applications, such as question-answering and fact-checking. Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) represents text as knowledge graphs. Evaluating the quality of these graphs involves matching them structurally to each other and semantically to the source text. Existing AMR metrics are inefficient and struggle to capture semantic similarity. We also lack a systematic evaluation benchmark for assessing structural similarity between AMR graphs. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a novel AMR similarity metric, rematch, alongside a new evaluation for structural similarity called RARE. Among state-of-the-art metrics, rematch ranks second in structural similarity; and first in semantic similarity by 1–5 percentage points on the STS-B and SICK-R benchmarks. Rematch is also five times faster than the next most efficient metric.

The present level of proliferation of fake, biased, and propagandistic content online has made it impossible to fact-check every single suspicious claim or article, either manually or automatically. An increasing number of scholars are focusing on a coarser granularity, aiming to profile entire news outlets, which allows fast identification of potential “fake news” by checking the reliability of their source. Source factuality is also an important element of systems for automatic fact-checking and “fake news” detection, as they need to assess the reliability of the evidence they retrieve online. Political bias detection, which in the Western political landscape is about predicting left-center-right bias, is an equally important topic, which has experienced a similar shift toward profiling entire news outlets. Moreover, there is a clear connection between the two, as highly biased media are less likely to be factual; yet, the two problems have been addressed separately. In this survey, we review the state of the art on media profiling for factuality and bias, arguing for the need to model them jointly. We also shed light on some of the major challenges for modeling bias and factuality jointly. We further discuss interesting recent advances in using different information sources and modalities, which go beyond the text of the articles the target news outlet has published. Finally, we discuss current challenges and outline future research directions.

As AI becomes more integral in our lives, the need for transparency and responsibility grows. While natural language explanations (NLEs) are vital for clarifying the reasoning behind AI decisions, evaluating them through human judgments is complex and resource-intensive due to subjectivity and the need for fine-grained ratings. This study explores the alignment between ChatGPT and human assessments across multiple scales (i.e., binary, ternary, and 7-Likert scale). We sample 300 data instances from three NLE datasets and collect 900 human annotations for both informativeness and clarity scores as the text quality measurement. We further conduct paired comparison experiments under different ranges of subjectivity scores, where the baseline comes from 8,346 human annotations. Our results show that ChatGPT aligns better with humans in more coarse-grained scales. Also, paired comparisons and dynamic prompting (i.e., providing semantically similar examples in the prompt) improve the alignment. This research advances our understanding of large language models’ capabilities to assess the text explanation quality in different configurations for responsible AI development.

ChatGPT, the first large language model with mass adoption, has demonstrated remarkableperformance in numerous natural language tasks. Despite its evident usefulness, evaluatingChatGPT’s performance in diverse problem domains remains challenging due to the closednature of the model and its continuous updates via Reinforcement Learning from HumanFeedback (RLHF). We highlight the issue of data contamination in ChatGPT evaluations, with a case study in stance detection. We discuss the challenge of preventing data contamination and ensuring fair model evaluation in the age of closed and continuously trained models.

We investigate predictors of anti-Asian hate among Twitter users throughout COVID-19. With the rise of xenophobia and polarization that has accompanied widespread social media usage in many nations, online hate has become a major social issue, attracting many researchers. Here, we apply natural language processing techniques to characterize social media users who began to post anti-Asian hate messages during COVID-19. We compare two user groups—those who posted anti-Asian slurs and those who did not—with respect to a rich set of features measured with data prior to COVID-19 and show that it is possible to predict who later publicly posted anti-Asian slurs. Our analysis of predictive features underlines the potential impact of news media and information sources that report on online hate and calls for further investigation into the role of polarized communication networks and news media.

Predicting the political bias and the factuality of reporting of entire news outlets are critical elements of media profiling, which is an understudied but an increasingly important research direction. The present level of proliferation of fake, biased, and propagandistic content online has made it impossible to fact-check every single suspicious claim, either manually or automatically. Thus, it has been proposed to profile entire news outlets and to look for those that are likely to publish fake or biased content. This makes it possible to detect likely “fake news” the moment they are published, by simply checking the reliability of their source. From a practical perspective, political bias and factuality of reporting have a linguistic aspect but also a social context. Here, we study the impact of both, namely (i) what was written (i.e., what was published by the target medium, and how it describes itself in Twitter) vs. (ii) who reads it (i.e., analyzing the target medium’s audience on social media). We further study (iii) what was written about the target medium (in Wikipedia). The evaluation results show that what was written matters most, and we further show that putting all information sources together yields huge improvements over the current state-of-the-art.

We introduce Tanbih, a news aggregator with intelligent analysis tools to help readers understanding what’s behind a news story. Our system displays news grouped into events and generates media profiles that show the general factuality of reporting, the degree of propagandistic content, hyper-partisanship, leading political ideology, general frame of reporting, and stance with respect to various claims and topics of a news outlet. In addition, we automatically analyse each article to detect whether it is propagandistic and to determine its stance with respect to a number of controversial topics.

Because word semantics can substantially change across communities and contexts, capturing domain-specific word semantics is an important challenge. Here, we propose SemAxis, a simple yet powerful framework to characterize word semantics using many semantic axes in word-vector spaces beyond sentiment. We demonstrate that SemAxis can capture nuanced semantic representations in multiple online communities. We also show that, when the sentiment axis is examined, SemAxis outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches in building domain-specific sentiment lexicons.