Cited by 219Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMisinformation and Its Impacts

The Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) Shared Task

Open access
Thorne, James, Vlachos, Andreas, Cocarascu, Oana, Christodoulopoulos, Christos, Mittal, Arpit·2018·Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)

Abstract

We present the results of the first Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) Shared Task.The task challenged participants to classify whether human-written factoid claims could be SUPPORTED or REFUTED using evidence retrieved from Wikipedia.We received entries from 23 competing teams, 19 of which scored higher than the previously published baseline.The best performing system achieved a FEVER score of 64.21%.In this paper, we present the results of the shared task and a summary of the systems, highlighting commonalities and innovations among participating systems.

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/w18-5501

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • Existing fact-checking approaches either require access to the output probability distribution or external databases interfaced via separate modules.

    “Existing fact-checking approaches either require access to the output probability distribution (which may not be available for systems such as ChatGPT) or external databases that are interfaced via separate, often complex, modules.”

    From SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Thorne et al., 2018

    The Introduction and §4.1 describe FEVER systems checking claims against evidence retrieved from Wikipedia, and Appendix A.2 describes a multistage retrieval and inference system. This supports the external-source-and-modules part of the claim, but the paper does not establish that existing approaches generally require either that setup or access to an output probability distribution; it also does not address ChatGPT. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Fact-verification approaches require evidence retrieved from an external database, and facts can only be assessed relative to the knowledge present in the database.

    “An alternate approach is to leverage fact-verification approaches, where evidence is retrieved from an external database to assess the veracity of a claim (Thorne et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2022). However, facts can only be assessed relative to the knowledge present in the database.”

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: 12

  1. Sanjeev Arora, Yingyu Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2017. A simple but tough to beat baseline for sentence em- beddings. In Iclr, pages 1-14.
  2. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large anno- tated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
  3. Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Reading Wikipedia to Answer Open- Domain Questions. Proc. of ACL'17.
  4. Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhenhua Ling, Si Wei, Hui Jiang, and Diana Inkpen. 2016. Enhanced LSTM for Natural Language Inference. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 1657-1668, Vancouver, Canada.
  5. Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loic Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised Learning of Universal Sentence Representations from Natural Language Inference Data. In Proceed- ings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 670-680, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  6. Matt J Kusner, Yu Sun, Nicholas I Kolkin, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2015. From Word Embeddings To Doc- ument Distances. Proceedings of The 32nd Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning, 37:957- 966.
  7. Matthew E Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word rep- resentations. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 2227-2237, New Orleans, Louisiana.
  8. Alec Radford and Tim Salimans. 2018. Improv- ing Language Understanding by Generative Pre- Training. arXiv, pages 1-12.
  9. Vladimir Svetnik, Andy Liaw, Christopher Tong, J Christopher Culberson, Robert P Sheridan, and Bradley P Feuston. 2003. Random forest: a clas- sification and regression tool for compound classi- fication and qsar modeling. Journal of chemical in- formation and computer sciences, 43(6):1947-1958.
  10. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and verification. In NAACL-HLT.
  11. Yi Yang and Ming-Wei Chang. 2015. S-MART: Novel Tree-based Structured Learning Algorithms Applied to Tweet Entity Linking. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 504-513, Beijing, China.
  12. Wenpeng Yin, Hinrich Schütze, and Dan Roth. 2018. End-Task Oriented Textual Entailment via Deep Ex- plorations of Inter-Sentence Interactions. In Pro- ceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics (Short Papers), pages 540-545, Melbourne, Australia.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thorne, J., Vlachos, A., Cocarascu, O., Christodoulopoulos, C., & Mittal, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)
Published
2018
Pages
1-9
OpenAlex
W2902421513
Cited by
212
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 1
FWCI
10.82
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Fact Extraction and VERification Workshop (FEVER) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (EU‐H2020)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
fact-checking, fact extraction

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