Prompt to be Consistent is Better than Self-Consistent? Few-Shot and Zero-Shot Fact Verification with Pre-trained Language Models

Fengzhu Zeng, Wei Gao
6/5/2023
cs.CL

No official code found. Best implementation: znhy1024/ProToCo (8 stars, last commit 2024-03-20).

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.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

znhy1024/ProToCoCommunity100%
83C++, CudaMay 3, 20232 years ago

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{zeng2023prompt,
  title  = {Prompt to be Consistent is Better than Self-Consistent? Few-Shot and Zero-Shot Fact Verification with Pre-trained Language Models},
  author = {Fengzhu Zeng and Wei Gao},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2306.02569},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.02569v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2306.02569.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2306.02569)

Discussion