Scientific Claim Verification (SciFact)
Verify scientific claims against evidence from research abstracts. Based on SciFact (Wadden et al., EMNLP 2020). Classify claims as supported, refuted, or having insufficient evidence, and identify rationale sentences.
Configuration Fileconfig.yaml
# Scientific Claim Verification (SciFact-style)
# Based on Wadden et al., EMNLP 2020
# Paper: https://aclanthology.org/2020.emnlp-main.609/
# Dataset: https://github.com/allenai/scifact
#
# This task verifies scientific claims against evidence from research abstracts.
# Annotators determine if a claim is SUPPORTED, REFUTED, or has NOT ENOUGH INFO
# based on the provided abstract, and identify which sentences provide evidence.
#
# Verification Labels:
# - SUPPORTS: The abstract provides evidence that the claim is true
# - REFUTES: The abstract provides evidence that the claim is false
# - NOT ENOUGH INFO: The abstract doesn't address the claim conclusively
#
# Annotation Guidelines:
# 1. Read the claim carefully and identify what it's asserting
# 2. Read the full abstract before making a judgment
# 3. Look for sentences that directly address the claim
# 4. SUPPORTS: Evidence confirms the claim (same finding)
# 5. REFUTES: Evidence contradicts the claim (opposite finding)
# 6. NOT ENOUGH INFO: Evidence is tangentially related but doesn't verify/refute
# 7. Mark ALL sentences that provide relevant evidence (rationales)
#
# Important Distinctions:
# - "No effect found" REFUTES claims of an effect
# - Correlation claims differ from causation claims
# - Population-specific findings may not generalize
annotation_task_name: "Scientific Claim Verification"
task_dir: "."
data_files:
- sample-data.json
item_properties:
id_key: "id"
text_key: "abstract"
output_annotation_dir: "annotation_output/"
output_annotation_format: "json"
annotation_schemes:
# Step 1: Verification label
- annotation_type: radio
name: verification
description: "Based on the abstract, is the CLAIM supported, refuted, or is there not enough information?"
labels:
- "SUPPORTS"
- "REFUTES"
- "NOT ENOUGH INFO"
tooltips:
"SUPPORTS": "The abstract provides evidence that confirms the claim is true"
"REFUTES": "The abstract provides evidence that contradicts the claim (claim is false)"
"NOT ENOUGH INFO": "The abstract doesn't contain sufficient information to verify or refute the claim"
# Step 2: Evidence/rationale identification
- annotation_type: span
name: evidence
description: "Highlight the sentence(s) that provide evidence for your verification decision"
labels:
- "Evidence"
label_colors:
"Evidence": "#22c55e"
tooltips:
"Evidence": "Sentences that directly support or refute the claim"
allow_overlapping: false
# Step 3: Confidence
- annotation_type: likert
name: confidence
description: "How confident are you in your verification?"
min_value: 1
max_value: 5
labels:
1: "Very uncertain"
2: "Somewhat uncertain"
3: "Moderately confident"
4: "Confident"
5: "Very confident"
allow_all_users: true
instances_per_annotator: 50
annotation_per_instance: 2
allow_skip: true
skip_reason_required: false
Sample Datasample-data.json
[
{
"id": "sci_001",
"claim": "Vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of respiratory infections.",
"abstract": "Background: Vitamin D has immunomodulatory effects that may protect against respiratory infections. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials including 11,321 participants. Results: Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory infection (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.96). The protective effect was strongest in participants with baseline vitamin D deficiency. Conclusion: Vitamin D supplementation is safe and provides modest protection against respiratory infections."
},
{
"id": "sci_002",
"claim": "Coffee consumption increases the risk of cardiovascular disease.",
"abstract": "Objective: To examine the association between coffee consumption and cardiovascular disease risk. Methods: Prospective cohort study of 468,629 UK Biobank participants followed for 11 years. Results: Compared to non-coffee drinkers, moderate coffee consumption (3-4 cups/day) was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92). Heavy consumption (>6 cups/day) showed no significant association. Conclusion: Moderate coffee consumption is associated with reduced cardiovascular risk."
}
]
// ... and 4 more itemsGet This Design
Clone or download from the repository
Quick start:
git clone https://github.com/davidjurgens/potato-showcase.git cd potato-showcase/text/fact-verification/scientific-claim-verification potato start config.yaml
Details
Annotation Types
Domain
Use Cases
Tags
Found an issue or want to improve this design?
Open an IssueRelated Designs
ESA: Error Span Annotation for Machine Translation
Error span annotation for machine translation output. Annotators identify error spans in translations, classify error types (accuracy, fluency, terminology, style), and rate severity.
LongEval: Faithfulness Evaluation for Long-form Summarization
Faithfulness evaluation of long-form summaries. Annotators identify atomic content units in summaries, check each against source documents for faithfulness, and rate overall summary quality.
News Headline Emotion Roles (GoodNewsEveryone)
Annotate emotions in news headlines with semantic roles. Based on Bostan et al., LREC 2020. Identify emotion, experiencer, cause, target, and textual cue.