Cited by 48Misinformation and Its ImpactsSpeech and dialogue systemsTopic Modeling

DialFact: A Benchmark for Fact-Checking in Dialogue

Open access
Gupta, Prakhar, Wu, Chien-Sheng, Liu, Wenhao, Xiong, Caiming·2022·Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Fact-checking is an essential tool to mitigate the spread of misinformation and disinformation.We introduce the task of fact-checking in dialogue, which is a relatively unexplored area.We construct DIALFACT, a testing benchmark dataset of 22,245 annotated conversational claims, paired with pieces of evidence from Wikipedia.There are three sub-tasks in DIALFACT: 1) Verifiable claim detection task distinguishes whether a response carries verifiable factual information; 2) Evidence retrieval task retrieves the most relevant Wikipedia snippets as evidence; 3) Claim verification task predicts a dialogue response to be supported, refuted, or not enough information.We found that existing fact-checking models trained on non-dialogue data like FEVER (Thorne et al., 2018) fail to perform well on our task, and thus, we propose a simple yet data-efficient solution to effectively improve fact-checking performance in dialogue.We point out unique challenges in DIALFACT such as handling the colloquialisms, coreferences and retrieval ambiguities in the error analysis to shed light on future research in this direction 1 .Dialogue Context: I have family in Ireland!Have you ever been there?Evidence: Ireland is an island in the North Atlantic.Non-Verifiable Response: I haven't been but want to!Verifiable Supported Response: I haven't.It is an island in the north Atlantic right?Verifiable Refuted Response: I haven't been.Isn't it somewhere in north Pacific?Verifiable NEI Response: I haven't been.I heard it's the most popular tourist location in Europe!

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.263

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior hallucination evaluation benchmarks are limited to single tasks (e.g., dialogue) and small models (e.g., DPR).

    “Though these benchmarks can serve as decent evaluation platform, they are penurious in only focusing on single tasks (e.g., dialogue) and small models (e.g., DPR).”

    From HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Gupta et al., 2022

    The Task Background and Related Work sections describe DialFact as focused on dialogue fact-checking, so it supports the dialogue-specific example. But Section 5 lists three subtasks, and Section 5.2.1 treats DPR as an evidence-retrieval method; the paper does not establish that prior benchmarks focus only on single tasks or small models. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Another line of work focuses on evaluating the hallucination of models in different NLP tasks.

    “Another line of work focusing on evaluating the hallucination of models in different NLP tasks”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. George A Miller. 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT press.
  2. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gupta, P., Wu, C.-S., Liu, W., & Xiong, C.
Affiliations
Salesforce (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2022
Pages
3785-3801
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3207604732
Cited by
48
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 13
FWCI
33.42
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
evidence retrieval, claim verification, misinformation, disinformation, colloquial vocabulary, coreference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review