REVIEW 2 cited by
QuanTemp: A real-world open-domain benchmark for fact-checking numerical claims
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
QuanTemp: A real-world open-domain benchmark for fact-checking numerical claims
read the original abstract
Automated fact checking has gained immense interest to tackle the growing misinformation in the digital era. Existing systems primarily focus on synthetic claims on Wikipedia, and noteworthy progress has also been made on real-world claims. In this work, we release QuanTemp, a diverse, multi-domain dataset focused exclusively on numerical claims, encompassing temporal, statistical and diverse aspects with fine-grained metadata and an evidence collection without leakage. This addresses the challenge of verifying real-world numerical claims, which are complex and often lack precise information, not addressed by existing works that mainly focus on synthetic claims. We evaluate and quantify the limitations of existing solutions for the task of verifying numerical claims. We also evaluate claim decomposition based methods, numerical understanding based models and our best baselines achieves a macro-F1 of 58.32. This demonstrates that QuanTemp serves as a challenging evaluation set for numerical claim verification.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Symbolic Augmentation Closes a Canonical-Equivalence Blind Spot in Neural Fact-Checkers
Typed quantity verification exposes a canonical-equivalence blind spot in neural fact-checkers; Symbolic Augmentation fixes it (36.5%→98.2%) and transfers to SciFact-Open (+0.037 binary macro-F1).
-
TSVer: A Benchmark for Fact Verification Against Time-Series Evidence
TSVer is a new benchmark dataset for fact verification against time-series evidence, with 304 annotated real-world claims, 400 time series, verdicts, and justifications, plus baseline results showing current models struggle.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.