Missci: Reconstructing Fallacies in Misrepresented Science
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a new method called "Missci" for reconstructing fallacies in misrepresented scientific claims.
- The approach aims to identify and correct inaccuracies or misunderstandings in how scientific research is portrayed in online discourse.
- The method leverages large language models and other AI techniques to automatically detect and analyze potential fallacies in how scientific findings are being discussed and communicated.
Plain English Explanation
The paper introduces a system called "Missci" that is designed to help identify and fix problems in how scientific research is presented online. Sometimes, when people discuss scientific studies on social media or in other forums, they may misunderstand or misrepresent the actual findings. This can lead to the spread of misinformation about important topics like climate change or AI safety.
The Missci approach uses advanced language models and other AI techniques to automatically analyze these online discussions and detect instances where the science is being misrepresented. It then tries to "reconstruct" the original findings in a more accurate and objective way. The goal is to help correct misinformation and improve public understanding of important scientific research.
This could be useful for fact-checking online content, as well as for researchers and science communicators who want to ensure their work is being portrayed correctly. By catching and fixing misrepresentations early, the system aims to prevent the spread of misleading claims about science.
Technical Explanation
The core of the Missci approach is a specialized neural network model that is trained to detect and classify different types of fallacies and logical errors in how scientific findings are described. This includes things like cherry-picking data, overgeneralizing results, or misinterpreting statistical significance.
The model is built on top of a large pre-trained language model, which allows it to understand the nuanced meaning and context of the online text it analyzes. It also incorporates additional components, such as a knowledge base of scientific concepts and principles, to help it reason about the accuracy of the claims being made.
When the Missci system encounters a potentially misrepresented scientific claim, it first tries to reconstruct the original research by looking at the cited sources and underlying data. It then compares this to how the claim is being portrayed online, flagging any discrepancies or logical fallacies.
The system can then generate a detailed report explaining the nature of the misrepresentation and providing a more accurate summary of the scientific evidence. This output is designed to be interpretable and actionable, so that platform moderators, fact-checkers, or even the original researchers can use it to correct the online discourse.
Critical Analysis
The Missci approach represents an interesting and potentially valuable contribution to the challenge of combating online misinformation about science. By automating the detection and correction of misrepresentations, it could help limit the spread of harmful falsehoods and improve public understanding of important research.
That said, the paper acknowledges some key limitations and areas for further work. For example, the model's performance is dependent on the quality and coverage of its underlying knowledge base, which may not yet be comprehensive enough to handle all possible scientific domains and claim types.
There are also open questions about how to best present the system's output in a way that is compelling and actionable for end users. Striking the right balance between technical detail and plain-language explanation will be crucial for Missci to have real-world impact.
Additionally, given the subjective and contextual nature of many scientific debates, there may be cases where Missci's assessment of a claim as a "fallacy" is itself open to interpretation or disagreement. Careful consideration of these edge cases and potential failure modes will be important as the system is developed further.
Conclusion
Overall, the Missci system represents an innovative and timely approach to addressing the growing problem of scientific misinformation online. By combining advanced AI techniques with a focus on logical reasoning and claim reconstruction, it offers a promising path forward for automatically identifying and correcting inaccurate portrayals of important research.
As online discourse continues to shape public understanding of science, tools like Missci could play a valuable role in ensuring that debates and discussions are grounded in the actual evidence. Further development and real-world testing will be crucial to realizing the system's full potential.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Missci: Reconstructing Fallacies in Misrepresented Science
Max Glockner, Yufang Hou, Preslav Nakov, Iryna Gurevych
Health-related misinformation on social networks can lead to poor decision-making and real-world dangers. Such misinformation often misrepresents scientific publications and cites them as proof to gain perceived credibility. To effectively counter such claims automatically, a system must explain how the claim was falsely derived from the cited publication. Current methods for automated fact-checking or fallacy detection neglect to assess the (mis)used evidence in relation to misinformation claims, which is required to detect the mismatch between them. To address this gap, we introduce Missci, a novel argumentation theoretical model for fallacious reasoning together with a new dataset for real-world misinformation detection that misrepresents biomedical publications. Unlike previous fallacy detection datasets, Missci (i) focuses on implicit fallacies between the relevant content of the cited publication and the inaccurate claim, and (ii) requires models to verbalize the fallacious reasoning in addition to classifying it. We present Missci as a dataset to test the critical reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs), that are required to reconstruct real-world fallacious arguments, in a zero-shot setting. We evaluate two representative LLMs and the impact of different levels of detail about the fallacy classes provided to the LLM via prompts. Our experiments and human evaluation show promising results for GPT 4, while also demonstrating the difficulty of this task.
Read more6/6/2024
0
Grounding Fallacies Misrepresenting Scientific Publications in Evidence
Max Glockner, Yufang Hou, Preslav Nakov, Iryna Gurevych
Health-related misinformation claims often falsely cite a credible biomedical publication as evidence, which superficially appears to support the false claim. The publication does not really support the claim, but a reader could believe it thanks to the use of logical fallacies. Here, we aim to detect and to highlight such fallacies, which requires carefully assessing the exact content of the misrepresented publications. To achieve this, we introduce MissciPlus, an extension of the fallacy detection dataset Missci. MissciPlus builds on Missci by grounding the applied fallacies in real-world passages from misrepresented studies. This creates a realistic test-bed for detecting and verbalizing these fallacies under real-world input conditions, and enables novel passage-retrieval tasks. MissciPlus is the first logical fallacy dataset which pairs the real-world misrepresented evidence with incorrect claims, identical to the input to evidence-based fact-checking models. With MissciPlus, we i) benchmark retrieval models in identifying passages that support claims only when fallacies are applied, ii) evaluate how well LLMs articulate fallacious reasoning from misrepresented scientific passages, and iii) assess the effectiveness of fact-checking models in refuting claims that misrepresent biomedical research. Our findings show that current fact-checking models struggle to use relevant passages from misrepresented publications to refute misinformation. Moreover, these passages can mislead LLMs into accepting false claims as true.
Read more8/26/2024
1
Correcting misinformation on social media with a large language model
Xinyi Zhou, Ashish Sharma, Amy X. Zhang, Tim Althoff
Real-world misinformation, often multimodal, can be partially or fully factual but misleading using diverse tactics like conflating correlation with causation. Such misinformation is severely understudied, challenging to address, and harms various social domains, particularly on social media, where it can spread rapidly. High-quality and timely correction of misinformation that identifies and explains its (in)accuracies effectively reduces false beliefs. Despite the wide acceptance of manual correction, it is difficult to be timely and scalable. While LLMs have versatile capabilities that could accelerate misinformation correction, they struggle due to a lack of recent information, a tendency to produce false content, and limitations in addressing multimodal information. We propose MUSE, an LLM augmented with access to and credibility evaluation of up-to-date information. By retrieving evidence as refutations or supporting context, MUSE identifies and explains content (in)accuracies with references. It conducts multimodal retrieval and interprets visual content to verify and correct multimodal content. Given the absence of a comprehensive evaluation approach, we propose 13 dimensions of misinformation correction quality. Then, fact-checking experts evaluate responses to social media content that are not presupposed to be misinformation but broadly include (partially) incorrect and correct posts that may (not) be misleading. Results demonstrate MUSE's ability to write high-quality responses to potential misinformation--across modalities, tactics, domains, political leanings, and for information that has not previously been fact-checked online--within minutes of its appearance on social media. Overall, MUSE outperforms GPT-4 by 37% and even high-quality responses from laypeople by 29%. Our work provides a general methodological and evaluative framework to correct misinformation at scale.
Read more9/4/2024
🏋️
0
Detecting Fallacies in Climate Misinformation: A Technocognitive Approach to Identifying Misleading Argumentation
Francisco Zanartu, John Cook, Markus Wagner, Julian Garcia
Misinformation about climate change is a complex societal issue requiring holistic, interdisciplinary solutions at the intersection between technology and psychology. One proposed solution is a technocognitive approach, involving the synthesis of psychological and computer science research. Psychological research has identified that interventions in response to misinformation require both fact-based (e.g., factual explanations) and technique-based (e.g., explanations of misleading techniques) content. However, little progress has been made on documenting and detecting fallacies in climate misinformation. In this study, we apply a previously developed critical thinking methodology for deconstructing climate misinformation, in order to develop a dataset mapping different types of climate misinformation to reasoning fallacies. This dataset is used to train a model to detect fallacies in climate misinformation. Our study shows F1 scores that are 2.5 to 3.5 better than previous works. The fallacies that are easiest to detect include fake experts and anecdotal arguments, while fallacies that require background knowledge, such as oversimplification, misrepresentation, and slothful induction, are relatively more difficult to detect. This research lays the groundwork for development of solutions where automatically detected climate misinformation can be countered with generative technique-based corrections.
Read more5/15/2024