pith. sign in

arxiv: 1903.05543 · v1 · pith:PBEMX634new · submitted 2019-03-13 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Adversarial attacks against Fact Extraction and VERification

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI
keywords tasksharedadversarialattacksinstancesnumbersystemsextraction
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

This paper describes a baseline for the second iteration of the Fact Extraction and VERification shared task (FEVER2.0) which explores the resilience of systems through adversarial evaluation. We present a collection of simple adversarial attacks against systems that participated in the first FEVER shared task. FEVER modeled the assessment of truthfulness of written claims as a joint information retrieval and natural language inference task using evidence from Wikipedia. A large number of participants made use of deep neural networks in their submissions to the shared task. The extent as to whether such models understand language has been the subject of a number of recent investigations and discussion in literature. In this paper, we present a simple method of generating entailment-preserving and entailment-altering perturbations of instances by common patterns within the training data. We find that a number of systems are greatly affected with absolute losses in classification accuracy of up to $29\%$ on the newly perturbed instances. Using these newly generated instances, we construct a sample submission for the FEVER2.0 shared task. Addressing these types of attacks will aid in building more robust fact-checking models, as well as suggest directions to expand the datasets.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evidence Absence Is Not Evidence Insufficiency: Diagnosing NEI Construction Artifacts in Fact Verification

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    NEI competence does not transfer reliably across evidence constructions in fact verification; mixed training narrows but does not close the gap, and aggregate scores can mask specific weaknesses.

  2. PeerCheck: Enhancing LLM-Generated Academic Reviews Towards Human-Level Quality

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    PeerCheck finds that chain-of-thought prompting improves LLM academic reviews while retrieval-augmented generation sometimes lowers quality, and that LLMs and humans emphasize different aspects of papers.