Join us on the Venture Scientist Bootcamp, a full time, 4-month incubator at Mila, built specifically for deep tech founders with elite STEM backgrounds. You have until November 21, 2026 to apply!
Offered by Mila and the Public Policy Forum, this program is designed to equip policy and decision makers with the tools to navigate the opportunities and risks of AI. The next cohort will be held in English on November 5-6, 2026, in Ottawa.
We use cookies to analyze the browsing and usage of our website and to personalize your experience. You can disable these technologies at any time, but this may limit certain functionalities of the site. Read our Privacy Policy for more information.
Setting cookies
You can enable and disable the types of cookies you wish to accept. However certain choices you make could affect the services offered on our sites (e.g. suggestions, personalised ads, etc.).
Essential cookies
These cookies are necessary for the operation of the site and cannot be deactivated. (Still active)
Analytics cookies
Do you accept the use of cookies to measure the audience of our sites?
Multimedia Player
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content hosted by our partners (YouTube, etc.)?
Automated fact-checking systems are evaluated almost entirely by whether their predicted verdict matches a single gold label, an approach th… (see more)at assumes every claim has one stable interpretation and that the available evidence is always sufficient to resolve it. In practice, claims are frequently underspecified in time, place, or meaning, and retrieved evidence is often incomplete or contradictory, so this approach cannot distinguish a system that reasoned well on a genuinely ambiguous input from one that reasoned poorly but matched the label anyway. We introduce a framework that separates ambiguity in the claim and evidence from failures in the system's own reasoning and grounding, and conditions accuracy and response appropriateness on this ambiguity profile. Applied to a retrieval-based fact-checking pipeline across five benchmarks, plus a human pilot study, we find that ambiguity is pervasive and dominated by missing timeframes, that most correct verdicts on several benchmarks are backed by reasoning that would not hold up under scrutiny, and that systems grow more confident, not less, when their evidence conflicts.
2026-09-29
WiML @ Neural Information Processing Systems (published)