Users may strive to formulate an adequate textual query for their information need. Search engines assist the users by presenting query suggestions. To preserve the original search intent, suggestions should be context-aware and account for the previous queries issued by the user. Achieving context awareness is challenging due to data sparsity. We present a probabilistic suggestion model that is able to account for sequences of previous queries of arbitrary lengths. Our novel hierarchical recurrent encoder-decoder architecture allows the model to be sensitive to the order of queries in the context while avoiding data sparsity. Additionally, our model can suggest for rare, or long-tail, queries. The produced suggestions are synthetic and are sampled one word at a time, using computationally cheap decoding techniques. This is in contrast to current synthetic suggestion models relying upon machine learning pipelines and hand-engineered feature sets. Results show that it outperforms existing context-aware approaches in a next query prediction setting. In addition to query suggestion, our model is general enough to be used in a variety of other applications.

We contribute the largest publicly available dataset of naturally occurring factual claims for the purpose of automatic claim verification. It is collected from 26 fact checking websites in English, paired with textual sources and rich metadata, and labelled for veracity by human expert journalists. We present an in-depth analysis of the dataset, highlighting characteristics and challenges. Further, we present results for automatic veracity prediction, both with established baselines and with a novel method for joint ranking of evidence pages and predicting veracity that outperforms all baselines. Significant performance increases are achieved by encoding evidence, and by modelling metadata. Our best-performing model achieves a Macro F1 of 49.2%, showing that this is a challenging testbed for claim veracity prediction.

A standard approach to Information Retrieval (IR) is to model text as a bag of words. Alternatively, text can be modelled as a graph, whose vertices represent words, and whose edges represent relations between the words, defined on the basis of any meaningful statistical or linguistic relation. Given such a text graph, graph theoretic computations can be applied to measure various properties of the graph, and hence of the text. This work explores the usefulness of such graph-based text representations for IR. Specifically, we propose a principled graph-theoretic approach of (1) computing term weights and (2) integrating discourse aspects into retrieval. Given a text graph, whose vertices denote terms linked by co-occurrence and grammatical modification, we use graph ranking computations (e.g. PageRank Page et al. in The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the Web. Technical report, Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project, 1998) to derive weights for each vertex, i.e. term weights, which we use to rank documents against queries. We reason that our graph-based term weights do not necessarily need to be normalised by document length (unlike existing term weights) because they are already scaled by their graph-ranking computation. This is a departure from existing IR ranking functions, and we experimentally show that it performs comparably to a tuned ranking baseline, such as BM25 (Robertson et al. in NIST Special Publication 500-236: TREC-4, 1995). In addition, we integrate into ranking graph properties, such as the average path length, or clustering coefficient, which represent different aspects of the topology of the graph, and by extension of the document represented as a graph. Integrating such properties into ranking allows us to consider issues such as discourse coherence, flow and density during retrieval. We experimentally show that this type of ranking performs comparably to BM25, and can even outperform it, across different TREC (Voorhees and Harman in TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval, MIT Press, 2005) datasets and evaluation measures.

Recent developments in machine learning have introduced models that approach human performance at the cost of increased architectural complexity. Efforts to make the rationales behind the models' predictions transparent have inspired an abundance of new explainability techniques. Provided with an already trained model, they compute saliency scores for the words of an input instance. However, there exists no definitive guide on (i) how to choose such a technique given a particular application task and model architecture, and (ii) the benefits and drawbacks of using each such technique. In this paper, we develop a comprehensive list of diagnostic properties for evaluating existing explainability techniques. We then employ the proposed list to compare a set of diverse explainability techniques on downstream text classification tasks and neural network architectures. We also compare the saliency scores assigned by the explainability techniques with human annotations of salient input regions to find relations between a model's performance and the agreement of its rationales with human ones. Overall, we find that the gradient-based explanations perform best across tasks and model architectures, and we present further insights into the properties of the reviewed explainability techniques.

Most existing work on automated fact checking is concerned with predicting the veracity of claims based on metadata, social network spread, language used in claims, and, more recently, evidence supporting or denying claims. A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process -generating justifications for verdicts on claims. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context, and how this task can be modelled jointly with veracity prediction. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system. The results of a manual evaluation further suggest that the informativeness, coverage and overall quality of the generated explanations are also improved in the multi-task model. Claim:The last major oil spill from a drilling accident in America happened over 40 years ago in 1969.Ruling Comments: (...) The last major oil spill from a drilling accident in America happened over 40 years ago in 1969.(...) The largest in volume was the Santa Barbara spill of 1969 referenced by Murdock and Johnson, in which an estimated 100,000 barrels of oil spilled into the Pacific Ocean, according to the API. The Santa Barbara spill was so big it ranked seventh among the 10 largest oil spills caused by marine well blowouts in the world, the report states. Two other U.S. spills, both in 1970, rank eighth and 10th. Fourteen marine blowouts have taken place in the U.S. between 1969 and 2007. Six of them took place after 1990 and spilled a total of nearly 13,700 barrels.(...) We interviewed three scientists who said that the impact of a spill has little to do with its volume. Scientists have proven that spills far smaller than Santa Barbara's have been devastating.Justification: While the nation's largest oil well blowout did take place in 1969, it's not factually correct to call it the "last major oil spill". First of all, two of the largest blowouts in the world took place in the U. S. the following year. More importantly, experts agree that spills far smaller in volume to the 1969 disaster have been devastating. From a scientific perspective, Johnson's decision to single out the 1969 blowout as the last "major" one makes no sense.