Pith. sign in

REVIEW

NewsEdits 2.0: Learning the Intentions Behind Updating News

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.18811 v1 pith:PL4AHGB6 submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CL cs.AIcs.DL

NewsEdits 2.0: Learning the Intentions Behind Updating News

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.DL
keywords newsupdatearticlefactsarticlesfactualinformationlarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

As events progress, news articles often update with new information: if we are not cautious, we risk propagating outdated facts. In this work, we hypothesize that linguistic features indicate factual fluidity, and that we can predict which facts in a news article will update using solely the text of a news article (i.e. not external resources like search engines). We test this hypothesis, first, by isolating fact-updates in large news revisions corpora. News articles may update for many reasons (e.g. factual, stylistic, narrative). We introduce the NewsEdits 2.0 taxonomy, an edit-intentions schema that separates fact updates from stylistic and narrative updates in news writing. We annotate over 9,200 pairs of sentence revisions and train high-scoring ensemble models to apply this schema. Then, taking a large dataset of silver-labeled pairs, we show that we can predict when facts will update in older article drafts with high precision. Finally, to demonstrate the usefulness of these findings, we construct a language model question asking (LLM-QA) abstention task. We wish the LLM to abstain from answering questions when information is likely to become outdated. Using our predictions, we show, LLM absention reaches near oracle levels of accuracy.

discussion (0)

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