Cited by 55

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Verify-and-Edit: A Knowledge-Enhanced Chain-of-Thought Framework

Zhao, Ruochen, Li, Xingxuan, Joty, Shafiq, Qin, Chengwei, Bing, Lidong·2023·Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Overview

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/v1/2023.acl-long.320

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The Verify-and-Edit framework consists of five steps: (1) pass predictions with lower-than-average consistency to the next stages while leaving highly consistent predictions as-is; (2) produce verifying questions; (3) retrieve external knowledge; (4) edit rationales with informed answers; and (5) produce new predictions.
Figure 1 The Verify-and-Edit framework consists of five steps: (1) pass predictions with lower-than-average consistency to the next stages while leaving highly consistent predictions as-is; (2) produce verifying questions; (3) retrieve external knowledge; (4) edit rationales with informed answers; and (5) produce new predictions.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Kernal density estimation plots for consistency on the Adversarial HotpotQA dataset. With kernal estimation, the curve extends its true distribution's range, which is from 0 to 5 (as we sampled 5 paths).
Figure 2 Kernal density estimation plots for consistency on the Adversarial HotpotQA dataset. With kernal estimation, the curve extends its true distribution's range, which is from 0 to 5 (as we sampled 5 paths).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Ablation study on the effect of various consistency thresholds on task performances on Adversarial HotpotQA
Figure 3 Ablation study on the effect of various consistency thresholds on task performances on Adversarial HotpotQACC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 4 Example Screenshot of Human Evaluation User Interface.
Figure 4 Example Screenshot of Human Evaluation User Interface.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Hig- gins. 2022. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09712. · arXiv
  2. Olga Golovneva, Moya Chen, Spencer Poff, Mar- tin Corredor, Luke Zettlemoyer, Maryam Fazel- Zarandi, and Asli Celikyilmaz. 2022. Roscoe: A suite of metrics for scoring step-by-step reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07919. · arXiv
  3. Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasu- pat, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2020. Realm: Retrieval- augmented language model pre-training. In Pro- ceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org.
  4. Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22(3):276-282.
  5. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 809-819, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171. · arXiv
  7. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903. · arXiv
  8. Sarah Wiegreffe, Jack Hessel, Swabha Swayamdipta, Mark Riedl, and Yejin Choi. 2022. Reframing human-AI collaboration for generating free-text ex- planations. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 632-658, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  9. Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of ex- planations in few-shot prompting for textual reason- ing. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  10. Ruochen Zhao, Xingxuan Li, Yew Ken Chia, Bosheng Ding, and Lidong Bing. 2023. Can chatgpt-like gen- erative models guarantee factual accuracy? on the mistakes of new generation search engines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11076. · arXiv
  11. Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2022. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reason- ing in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 55

Metadata

Authors
Zhao, R., Li, X., Joty, S., Qin, C., & Bing, L.
Venue
Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2023
Pages
5823-5840
Cited by
55
References
13

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