Prompt to be Consistent is Better than Self-Consistent? Few-Shot and Zero-Shot Fact Verification with Pre-trained Language Models
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Authors Fengzhu Zeng and Wei Gao introduce ProToCo, a method for enhancing factuality assessment in pre-trained language models (PLMs) in few-shot and zero-shot settings.
- ProToCo uses prompt-based learning to prompt PLMs to be consistent in their predictions by generating multiple claim variants with different relations.
- Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) is employed to update PLMs, resulting in more accurate predictions for few-shot and zero-shot fact verification tasks.
- ProToCo surpasses state-of-the-art few-shot fact verification baselines significantly and outperforms the strong zero-shot learner T0 even with a small number of unlabeled instances.
- When compared to large PLMs trained using the in-context learning (ICL) method, ProToCo outperforms OPT-30B and the Self-Consistency-enabled OPT-6.7B model across both few-shot and zero-shot settings.
- Prompting PLMs to maintain consistency can lead to improved performance in fact verification tasks with limited labeled data, making ProToCo a promising approach for handling few-shot and zero-shot scenarios effectively.
Authors: Fengzhu Zeng, Wei Gao
Abstract: Few-shot or zero-shot fact verification only relies on a few or no labeled training examples. In this paper, we propose a novel method called ProToCo, to \underline{Pro}mpt pre-trained language models (PLMs) \underline{To} be \underline{Co}nsistent, for improving the factuality assessment capability of PLMs in the few-shot and zero-shot settings. Given a claim-evidence pair, ProToCo generates multiple variants of the claim with different relations and frames a simple consistency mechanism as constraints for making compatible predictions across these variants. We update PLMs by using parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT), leading to more accurate predictions in few-shot and zero-shot fact verification tasks. Our experiments on three public verification datasets show that ProToCo significantly outperforms state-of-the-art few-shot fact verification baselines. With a small number of unlabeled instances, ProToCo also outperforms the strong zero-shot learner T0 on zero-shot verification. Compared to large PLMs using in-context learning (ICL) method, ProToCo outperforms OPT-30B and the Self-Consistency-enabled OPT-6.7B model in both few- and zero-shot settings.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.