Typical fact verification models use retrieved written evidence to verify claims. Evidence sources, however, often change over time as more information is gathered and revised. In order to adapt, models must be sensitive to subtle differences in supporting evidence. We present VITAMINC, a benchmark infused with challenging cases that require fact verification models to discern and adjust to slight factual changes. We collect over 100,000 Wikipedia revisions that modify an underlying fact, and leverage these revisions, together with additional synthetically constructed ones, to create a total of over 400,000 claim-evidence pairs. Unlike previous resources, the examples in VITAMINC are contrastive , i.e., they contain evidence pairs that are nearly identical in language and content, with the exception that one supports a given claim while the other does not. We show that training using this design increases robustnessimproving accuracy by 10% on adversarial fact verification and 6% on adversarial natural language inference (NLI). Moreover, the structure of VITAMINC leads us to define additional tasks for fact-checking resources: tagging relevant words in the evidence for verifying the claim, identifying factual revisions, and providing automatic edits via factually consistent text generation. 1 1 Introduction Determining the truthfulness of factual claims by comparing them to textual sources of evidence has received intense research interest in recent years. An underlying, but often overlooked, challenge for this paradigm, however, is the dynamic nature of today's written resources. An extraordinary amount of new information becomes available daily; as a result, many consequential facts are established, changed, or added to over time. We argue that the quality of fact verification systems should be 1 The VITAMINC dataset and our models are available at: https://github.com/TalSchuster/VitaminC its population is estimated to be 86,205, almost 14% more than the 2000 census figure of 76,129. measured by how well they adjust to new evidence. In this way, we seek to advance fact verification by requiring that models remain reliable and robust to the change present in practical settings. To this end, we focus on fact verification with contrastive evidence . That is, we infuse the standard fact verification paradigm with challenging cases that require models to be sensitive to factual changes in their presented evidence (hereon referred to interchangeably as context). We present VITAMINC, 2 a new large-scale fact verification dataset that is based on factual revisions to Wikipedia. The key concept is exemplified in Figure 1: there a factual revision yields a contrastive pair of contexts that are nearly identical in language and contentexcept that one context refutes the given claim, while the other supports it. This type of contrastive structure exposes existing deficiencies in model behavior. To illustrate this, we train a classifier on the popular FEVER fact verification dataset (Thorne et al., 2018) and evaluate it on contrastive claim-evidence pairs. We find that the model flips its prediction from the original verdict on only 56% of the contrastive cases. When examples from VITAMINC are included during training, however, the model's sensitivity increases, flipping on 86% of contrastive cases. Such context-sensitive inference has two main benefits. First, it ensures that the model consid-2 Etymology of VITAMINC: Contrastive evidence keeps fact verification models robust and healthy, hence Vitamin C. ers the provided evidence rather than relying on built-in static knowledge, such as that obtained via language model pre-training (Petroni et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2020). This is particularly important for scenarios in which the source of truth is mutable (e.g., the current US president, or new declarations as in Figure 1). Second, this setting discourages certain biases and idiosyncrasiessuch as exploiting differences in how true vs. false claims are posedthat are common in similar crowd-sourced datasets (Poliak et al., 2018; Schuster et al., 2019). Indeed, we show that augmenting both fact verification models and NLI models with VITAMINC data improves their robustness to adversarial inputs. Furthermore, our emphasis on contrastive contexts allows us to expand on the scope of commonly considered tasks. Most of the fact verification literature focuses on resolving claims to be true or false (Popat et al., 2018; Thorne and Vlachos, 2018; Wang, 2017). The surrounding ecosystem, however, includes additional challenges, some of which we explore here: Documents such as Wikipedia articles are updated frequently; which edits represent factual changes? For a given claim and (refuting or supporting) evidence pair, which words or phrases in the evidence are most relevant? If we know that a certain claim is true, can we modify an out-dated document to be consistent with it? We show that the unique structure of our VITAMINC dataset can be leveraged to provide both supervised and distantly supervised data for these new questions. Our key contributions are as follows: 1. We pose a contrastive fact verification paradigm that requires sensitivity to changes in data; 2. We introduce VITAMINC, a new large-scale dataset that supports this paradigm; 3. We demonstrate that training on VITAMINC leads to better performance on standard tasks; 4. We show how VITAMINC opens the door to additional research directions in fact verification. Fact Verification. The FEVER dataset (Thorne et al., 2018) fueled the development of many fact-checking models (e.g., see Hanselowski et al., 2018; Nie et al., 2019a,b; Yoneda et al., 2018, inter alia ). The claim creation process, however, required crowd-workers to write claims related to Wikipedia articles, and was found to engender biases that allow an evidence-agnostic model to achieve unexpectedly high performance (Schus-ter et al., 2019). Other recent datasets cover verification against tables (Chen et al., 2020), relational databases (Jo et al., 2019), Wikipedia references (Sathe et al., 2020), multiple articles (Jiang et al., 2020), and search snippets (Augenstein et al., 2019). These resources all assume static ground truths. In contrast, VITAMINC compares objective claims to a dynamic source of truth, and requires models to change their verdicts accordingly. Annotation Bias. Annotation artifacts are common in many NLP datasets, and affect performance on adversarial and contrastive examples (Gardner et al., 2020; Ribeiro et al., 2020; Ross et al., 2020). Sentence-pair inference tasks such as fact verification (Paul Panenghat et al., 2020; Schuster et al., 2019) and NLI (Gururangan et al., 2018; McCoy et al., 2019; Poliak et al., 2018; Tsuchiya, 2018) are no exception. Alleviating this bias requires either modeling solutions (Karimi Mahabadi et al., 2020; Pratapa et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2020; Thorne and Vlachos, 2020; Utama et al., 2020b), which have limited effectiveness (Utama et al., 2020a), or adversarially removing troublesome training examples (Bras et al., 2020) or manually collecting new ones (Nie et al., 2020; Thorne et al., 2019a), which is model specific. Instead, our dataset design avoids single-sentence artifacts and provides model-agnostic challenging examples that increase the robustness of trained models. Explainability. Current fact verification datasets provide sentence-level rationales (DeYoung et al., 2020; Petroni et al., 2020) but do not enforce the model's verdict to rely on themleading to a potential discrepancy. VITAMINC ensures the verdict is conditioned on the retrieved evidence. Moreover, we use the revision history as distant supervision for word-level rationales, allowing for finer-grained explanations (Camburu et al., 2018; Lei et al., 2016; Portelli et al., 2020; Thorne et al., 2019b). Factually Consistent Generation. Generating texts that match given facts is a known challenge (Fan et al., 2020; Kryscinski et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020b; Parikh et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2020) as language models tend to degenerate and hallucinate (Holtzman et al., 2020; Schuster et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). Moreover, evaluation is non-trivial, and usually manual. VITAMINC includes supervised data for training sequence-to-sequence models, and provides automatic evaluation via the fact verification classifier. VITAMINC (abbreviated VitC) is based on revisions to English Wikipedia. Wikipedia has become a comprehensive online resource that is rigorously maintained by a large and active community (Ben-jakob and Harrison, 2019). While adversaries do try to insert disinformation, popular pages are usually quickly corrected (Kumar et al., 2016). Furthermore, Wikipedia's policies dictate that its content should be written from a neutral perspective or should otherwise objectively state all points of view. 3 These properties make Wikipedia a suitable source of evidence for fact verification models. In the following section, we outline our process for mining factual revisions from Wikipedia. We collected the 5K most-viewed English Wikipedia articles 4 as of January 2020, along with any additional articles referred from them (on average 100 per article). We also included all articles from the FEVER dataset (Thorne et al., 2018). For each article, we retrieved up to 500 of its most recent revisions. In May 2020, we added all COVID-19 related articles 5 and all of their 41K revisions at the time. Combined together, this resulted in a total of  200 million revisions. For each revision, we identified all of the modified sentences and stored two versions: (1) before, and (2) after the edit. In our task, we are only interested in edits made with an intent to introduce a factual modification i.e., a change for which one can make a claim that is supported by one sentence, but not by the other. 6 To expedite annotation, we trained a BERT classifier (Devlin et al., 2019) on a small labeled set of revised sentences determined to be factual (Yang et al., 2017), and used this model to select the top 305K edited sentences from the corpus for manual annotation. Trained human annotators were then presented with the sentence pairs, and were asked to mark the ones that indeed represented a factual change. Sentences lacking self-contained context were filtered (e.g., short expressions from tables or bulleted lists). Example annotations are presented in Table 1. Note that these annotations can also be 3 https://bit.ly/Wiki_Neutral_POV 4 https://bit.ly/Wiki_popular_pages 5 https://wikimediafoundation.org/covid19 6 Many edits only reflect grammatical corrections, paraphrasing, or Wikification (text formatting/page linking). recursively recycled for re-training the automated BERT classifier in the future to expand the corpus further (we also introduce this as a task, see 4.1). The factual Wikipedia revisions guide us in creating challenging claims for fact verification. For each revision, annotators were asked to write two symmetric claims related to the same edit: 1. The first should be supported by the original sentence and refuted by the revised sentence; 2. The second should be supported by the revised sentence and refuted by the original sentence. When an explicit contradiction was not possible, a not enough information (NEI) relation was used. A group of 70 native English speakers 7 wrote and reviewed claims. During the annotation period, annotations were delivered in weekly batches, from which we examined random samples to provide feedback and request corrections. Annotators were instructed to write short and self-contained claims. Furthermore, annotators were instructed to avoid copying exact phrases and values when possible, in order to avoid a bias for substantially higher word overlap in supporting pairs over refuting pairs. For example, rather than stating,  there are x confirmed cases of coronavirus in the US , one can write  there are more than z confirmed cases of coronavirus in the US , which is supported if x > z and refuted otherwise. For revisions that only add new information or that remove outdated facts without replacing them, annotators wrote a single claim. Naturally, the real Wikipedia revisions we collect mostly describe facts that frequently change over time, or that are prone to mistakes and corrections (such as quantitative values, see Appendix A.1) (Faruqui et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2017). Sensitivity to contrastive contexts, however, is desirable behavior for any claim. This can both ensure consistency with external sources of truth, and improve the model's faithfulness via connecting the verdict with a specific evidence (Jacovi and Goldberg, 2020; Ross et al., 2020). For example, we require the model to not only classify the claim  Tom Hanks was honored by a president  as true, but to also change its verdict to false if paired with a (fictional) contrasting evidence. As a result, we can verify that the model prioritizes sentence-pair inference over 7 We sourced our annotators through TransPerfect. memorization, which can help it generalize better. Therefore, we use the FEVER dataset to augment VITAMINC with synthetic revisions to Wikipedia sentences. We follow the setting of Schuster et al. (2019) to expand claim-evidence pairs from FEVER (Thorne et al., 2018). Specifically, given a false claim from FEVER, we ask annotators to edit the sentence that refutes it so that it will then support the originally false claim. Additionally, we ask them to write a new claim that is refuted by the new, modified sentence, but that is supported by the original version. Following this method, we obtain two claims where each can be supported or refuted by the original, or the synthetically revised, sentence. We follow the same process for constructing synthetic examples using true claims, but with flipped labels. In total, 304,671 revised Wikipedia sentences were examined by annotators, of which 107,056 (35%) were found to express a factual modification and were passed to the group of expert annotators for claim writing. As two symmetric claims with opposing facts were created (when possible) for each revision, this resulted in a total of 325,724 total claim-evidence pairs. We collected 163,180 addi-Supports Refutes NEI Split Real Syn Real Syn Real Syn Train 124,864 60,850 71,108 60,850 52,981 Dev 21,102 10,382 12,146 10,382 9,042 Test 17,306 10,358 9,907 10,358 7,268 Table 2: Number of claim-evidence pairs in VITAMINC. tional pairs following the synthetic process. The data was partitioned as shown in Table 2. The assignment was done randomly by article, and is consistent with FEVER for overlapping articles. Appendix A contains additional details. The unique structure of VITAMINC allows us to derive annotations that provide a novel source of supervision for several fact-verification-related tasks. We describe the four main tasks we consider in this work, along with baseline models: (1) factual revision flagging, (2) fact verification, (3) word-level rationales, and (4) factually consistent generation. Figure 2 illustrates an example from VITAMINC. We use the following notations:  C is the space of short sentences that express an arbitrary factual statement that can potentially be verified or debunked by external sources. S is the space of sentences that can be found in a trusted online resource (Wikipedia in this study). ( s t  1 , s t ) denotes the two versions of a sentence that was revised from s t  1 to s t  S . rel( c, s ) denotes the relation between the claim c  C and observed evidence s  S which can either support c ( SUP ), refute it ( REF ), or not contain enough information ( NEI ). Online resources like Wikipedia are continuously changing. In order to remain a reliable and neutral source for recent information, its active community of users must constantly verify and correct the revisions of others. We define factual revision flagging as the task of identifying revisions that introduce a factual changee.g., by either modifying a certain fact, adding a new one, or removing an existing one. Such an automated detection process can help the community moderate important articles by serving as a watchdog for factual revisions. Furthermore, tracking factual revisions to certain articles can potentially help keep reliant articles consistent (e.g., citing articles, or non-English versions). We pose factual revision flagging as a binary classification function f flag : S  S  { 0 , 1 } , where for a revision ( s t  1 , s t ) i , we set y i = 1 iff there exists a claim in C whose label ( SUP or REF ) changes as a result of the edit (i.e., SUP  { REF , NEI } or REF  { SUP , NEI } ). Table 1 provides example factual and non-factual revisions. We evaluate the following baseline models: Edit Distance. We measure the edit distance between s t  1 and s t , assuming that larger edits are more likely to represent substantive changes. We tune a decision threshold on the validation set. BOW. We use an MLP on top of a bag-of-words representation. Each sentence is encoded as e  , the average fast Text (Bojanowski et al., 2017) word embedding of its edited words (i.e., that were removed or modified in the revision). The MLP input is then taken as [ e t  1 ; e t ; | e t  e t  1 | ; e t  e t  1 ] . Our basic setting is similar to the inference task of the FEVER dataset. 8 We predict the verdict for a claim given an observed evidence, f verdict : C  S  { SUP , REF , NEI } . The FEVER dataset, however, contains inde-pendent claim-evidence pairs. In our setting, we have claims paired with revisions such that rel( c i , s t  1 ) (cid:54) = rel( c i , s t ) , creating contrastive triplets. For example, the claim in Figure 2 states that the COVID-19 outbreak was identified before December. VITAMINC matches it with two different contexts (before and after the presented revi-sion), that can either support or refute that claim. Our baseline model is an ALBERT sentence-pair classifier that predicts rel( c, s ) . Compared to BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), it uses fewer parameters by shrinking the embedding size and sharing layers, which we find to improve robustness. Word-level rationales provide useful explanations for predictions of neural models (Lei et al., 2016). Such explanations can be particularly useful for semi-automated fact verification, since they allow users to quickly interpret and trust the model's verdict. 9 In Figure 2, for example, the date of the first identified case can explain the verdict for the claim. As first proposed by Lei et al. (2016), the standard definition of extractive rationales asks for selecting the minimal set of input tokens that is sufficient for preserving the model's prediction. Here we use a slightly modified definition following Shah et al. (2020), where we identify the minimal set of evidence tokens where removing them 8 To focus on the inference task, as opposed to a full end-to-end system, we assume that we have access to an oracle retriever. will change the input's label to NEI . We pose this task as conditional masking, where we learn a function f rationale : C  S  { 0 , 1 } n , where n is the length of an evidence s  S . Given an evidence s = ( x 1 , . . . , x n ) and a claim c , where rel( c, s )  { SUP , REF } , we want to find a mask m such that rel( c, s (cid:12) m ) = NEI , where s (cid:12) m = (cid:40) x i if m [ i ] = 0; <mask> if m [ i ] = 1 . Moreover, we want m to be as sparse as possible. Intuitively, s (cid:12) m could be viewed as an incomplete revision in which the masked words that have not yet been filled in will determine the relation with the claim. We say that m reveals the most responsible words in s for resolving c . Following Shah et al. (2020), we formulate an unsupervised objective as min n (cid:88) i =1 m i s.t. rel( c, s (cid:12) m ) = NEI . We evaluate the quality of m by comparing it in terms of F1 to both (1) m edit , the non-stopwords removed or replaced in the true revision (i.e., edit prediction ), and (2) m manual , a manually annotated human reference, (i.e., rationale prediction ). We implement the following two baselines: Unsupervised. Distantly Supervised. By leveraging opposing claims present in VITAMINC, we are able to identify m edit = diff ( s t  1 , s t ) i.e., the non-stopwords that are deleted or replaced in s t  1 when compared to s t . We then use m edit as distant supervision for m , where L ds =  n (cid:80) ni =1 log p ( m i = m edit i ) . We combine both the L us and L ds losses. As facts change, the sources reporting them must change as well to reflect the most recent information. In VITAMINC, this is reflected via the active revisions to Wikipedia. We simulate automating this process by considering two generation tasks: Automatic Revisions. f revise : S  C  S to produce a new context s t that minimally modifies s t  1 to agree with c . For example, one can change s t  1 in Figure 2 to state  before December  in order to agree with the claim. Claim Extraction. Given a revision ( s t  1 , s t ) , we learn f extract : S  S  C to produce a short claim c that expresses the factual change. In both tasks, the output should satisfy rel( c, s t ) = SUP , while rel( c, s t  1 ) = REF . We use f verdict (4.2) to evaluate this requirement. We experiment with both BART-base (Lewis et al., 2020a) and T5-base (Raffel et al., 2020) sequence-to-sequence transformer-based generators. For the revision task, we concatenate s t  1 and c with a separator and train the model to predict s t . For the claim extraction task, we combine the input pair ( s t  1 , s t ) into a single sentence that visualizes the revision (e.g., sales of {4.7  5.4} million ). We present and analyze results for the models described in Section 4. Our analysis attempts to evaluate several questions: (1) How well can the current state-of-the-art models perform on the VITAMINC tasks? (2) Does VITAMINC increases the robustness of models against adversarial examples? (3) Can VITAMINC improve interpretability by providing supervision for anchoring words? In addition to VITAMINC, we train and evaluate on several related datasets, which we briefly describe: FEVER (Thorne et al., 2018): A popular fact verification dataset based on Wikipedia. We use the provided SUP and REF claim-evidence pairs. For NEI claims, we randomly sample neutral evidence from the article with the highest BM25 score (Fisch et al., 2021). MNLI (Williams et al., 2018): A large and diverse dataset for natural language inference. The three-way sentence-pair entailment prediction is similar to fact verification. We use the hypothesis as the claim and the premise as the evidence and evaluate on the mismatched evaluation set. Symmetric (Schuster et al., 2019): A set of challenging symmetric, synthetic extensions to FEVER's evaluation set that avoid claim-only bias. Adversarial (Thorne et al., 2019c): Adversarial examples created by participants of the FEVER 2.0 shared task. Teams were asked to create claims that Model Train data AUC Prec. and REF claims and their gold evidence sentences. Triggers (Atanasova et al., 2020): A set of 186 FEVER claims paraphrased adversarially to contain universal adversarial triggers (Wallace et al., 2019). Its small size leads to high variance results. ANLI (Nie et al., 2020): An adversarial dataset for MNLIand FEVER-based models. The creation was performed in three iterative rounds in which a model was trained, and then crowdworkers devised adversarial inputs, and the process repeated. PAWS (Zhang et al., 2019): A dataset of altered Wikipedia sentences using word swapping and back-translation. Human annotators labeled whether the modified sentence is a paraphrase or not. We evaluate whether a PAWS-trained classifier can be used for our factual revision flagging task. Table 3 shows the results of our baseline models on the factual revision flagging task. First, we notice that a model trained on the PAWS dataset (reaching 93.42 F1 score on PAWS test) does not transfer well to the flagging task, and performs on par with a simple edit distance heuristic. We hypothesize that this is a result of the entity scrambling technique used to synthetically revise sentences in PAWS, which is different from the edits introduced by real, factual Wikipedia revisions in practice. Second, we see that the performance of neural models trained on the VITAMINC flagging task increases with richer inputs and more advanced modelsdemonstrating the complexity of the task. The ALBERT (diff) model that uses only the modified word sequences from each sentence (i.e., contextual within a subspan) improves the AUC by 10 points over a BOW model that gets a similar input. The ALBERT (full) model that receives the full sentences as input (i.e., has access to even more context), further improves the AUC by 2 points. Nevertheless, the best model still only reaches 83 Figure 3: Test accuracy of models trained on a dataset of 100K combined SUP and REF examples from VITAMINC and FEVER. Table 4 summarizes the results for classifiers trained on fact verification and NLI datasets. Verifying claims against real revisions proves to be the hardest. The best model achieves 89% accuracy, lower than that on either VITAMIN C's synthetic cases or the original FEVER examples. Including VITAMINC examples in the training data drastically increases models' sensitivity to contrastive examples (rightmost column)while preserving the in-domain accuracy (only  0 . 42% for FEVER and +0 . 12% for MNLI with ALBERT-xlarge). Another evidence for the generalization properties conferred by VITAMINC is its zero-shot performance to both other datsets. An ALBERT-xlarge model trained only on VITAMINC reaches 76% and 79% accuracy on FEVER and MNLI, respectively. In contrast, the transfer accuracy for MNLI  FEVER is 70% and for FEVER  MNLI is only 38% . Most importantly, models trained with VITAMINC perform better on challenging adversarial datasets. On the otherhand, simply augmenting FEVER data with MNLI data has a limited effect on adversarial examples. 10 We conjecture that the contrastive nature of VITAMINC helps models better learn the relations between the claims and evidencesand to avoid relying on certain artifacts that do not generalize well. To further probe the value of VITAMINC examples compared to FEVER ones ( SUP and REF 10 We've also tried augmenting FEVER with ANLI for an ALBERT-xlarge model and find it to achieve only 73% , 91% , and 34% on Adver., Sym., and Triggers, respectively. only), we compose training sets of 100K examples using different ratios of the two datasets. As shown in Figure 3, including more VITAMINC pairs continuously improves the performance on the challenging adversarial and symmetric evaluation sets. As an additional qualitative experiment, given the recent successes of huge language models such as GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), we explore whether such models develop sufficient context sensitivity on their own. Appendix C shows the results of classifying several claims using a few-shot GPT-3 model. We find that GPT-3 still largely under-performs our VITAMIN C-trained models in terms of sensitivitydemonstrating the importance of using VITAMIN C's unique structure during training. Table 5 shows the results of our baseline models for identifying word-level rationales (i.e., anchoring words in the evidence). While our unsupervised model is able to uncover some patterns, directly leveraging the structure of VITAMINC to obtain distant supervision for likely anchoring words (i.e., token labels) improves both the edit prediction and the word-level rationale prediction performance. 11 Example predictions are provided in Appendix E. 11 We evaluate rationales using a manually annotated test set of 300 examples (150 each from VitC real and VitC synthetic). Table 6 presents the results on factually consistent generation. We find BART to perform better in both of our generation tasks (though we only tried the default setting). The BLEU score (Papineni et al., 2002) is lower in the claim extraction task since there is freedom in how to phrase the claims, which can result in greater differences between the outputs and the references. The BERT-based BLEURT score (Sellam et al., 2020) shows a similar trend. Still, the claim extraction model succeeds in updating the facts that reflect the true revision 86% of the time, as measured by the fact verification model's verdict ( f verdict ). The revision generator aims to modify sentences so that they agree with a given claim. According to our fact verification model's verdict, it succeeds in doing so 76% of the time. Furthermore, revisions should resemble real ones, and preserve the remaining content that is unrelated to the claim. The SARI KEEP F1 (Xu et al., 2016) of 75 shows that the model and the reference mostly agree on parts of the sentence that should be kept unchanged. We find that the token-based measures and our f verdict metric agree well with human (manual) evaluation scores. We randomly sampled 100 generated and human-written sentences per task, and asked workers on Amazon MTurk to rate their grammaticality and whether the evidence s t supports the claim. The scores of the generated sentences were on par with the human-written ones, indicating the high-quality of our outputs. Table 7 presents two example generations for the claim extraction task (we provide additional qualitative examples in Appendix E). Our model is able to efficiently extract a self-contained claim that expresses the correct fact after the edit. As in 5.3, Target Model SARI scores Manual evaluation ROUGE 2 BLEU KEEP ADD DEL AVG BLEURT f verdict Grammar SUP Revision T5 77.63 47.46 72.61 13.32 43.04 42.99 0.38 64.52 81.00 71.80 BART 85.23 54.86 75.36 18.31 47.95 47.21 0.67 76.26 84.80 83.20 Claim T5 35.19 13.95 44.36 20.59 87.54 50.83 -0.12 75.39 71.33 72.22 BART 40.38 16.14 52.91 23.62 91.37 55.97 0.16 85.83 75.78 74.22 Table 6: Factually consistent generation results. we also explore how GPT-3 handles this task (we provide two demonstrations in the prompt). Compared to the BART model trained on VITAMINC, GPT-3 appears to make more factually inconsistent or unsupported generations (see Appendix C for more details). Encouragingly, our f verdict classifier is still able to pick up on thisas demonstrated by the predictions in the rightmost column of Table 7. For example, classifying the report about 20 deaths as NEI since it is not part of the source. Once again, this serves to qualitatively demonstrate the effectiveness of leveraging VITAMINC. We presented VITAMINC, a large-scale dataset for training and evaluating fact verification models using contrastive contexts. Our novel method of leveraging factual revisions to Wikipedia enabled us to create challenging examples in which a claim is paired with contexts that are lexically similar, yet factually opposing. Our results illustrated that training on VITAMINC improves classifier sensitivity to subtle changes in evidence, and increases their robustness to adversarial examples. Furthermore, we formulated several new, important tasks for fact verification that VITAMINC allows us to test. We showed how the dataset's unique before and after structure lends itself to training classifiers to flag factual revisions. In addition, for factual revisions, the edits reveal which words in the evidence are the most criticalwhich helps supervise word-level rationale models for better interpretability. Finally, we demonstrated that VITAMINC can help with factually consistent text generation. We hope that this work and the range of tasks it presents will motivate and support the fact verification field in developing reliable models that can adapt to dynamically changing evidence. We thank the TransPerfect team, Darsh J Shah and Enrico Santus for helpful discussions, as well as the members of the MIT NLP group and Andreas Vlachos for valuable feedback. This work is supported in part by the Facebook Online Safety Benchmark Award. TS is supported in part by DSO grant DSOCL18002. AF is supported in part by a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.
abstain abstain abstain method method abstain result result abstain abstain abstain other abstain abstain method method objective abstain abstain method result abstain abstain abstain objective abstain objective method abstain objective abstain method objective objective abstain objective objective result other other other other other other other other other other method other other other method other other other other abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method method abstain method method abstain method abstain method abstain abstain abstain other abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain other abstain method method abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain method abstain method abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain other abstain abstain abstain abstain method method abstain method method method abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain method abstain method method method method result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result result abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method objective result objective result abstain objective objective other other other other