Papers › Finding Convincing Views to Endorse a Claim
Finding Convincing Views to Endorse a Claim
Shunit Agmon, Amir Gilad, Brit Youngmann, Shahar Zoarets, Benny Kimelfeld
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Recent studies investigated the challenge of assessing the strength of a given claim extracted from a dataset, particularly the claim's potential of being misleading and cherry-picked. We focus on claims that compare answers to an aggregate query posed on a view that selects tuples. The strength of a claim amounts to the question of how likely it is that the view is carefully chosen to support the claim, whereas less careful choices would lead to contradictory claims. We embark on the study of the reverse task that offers a complementary angle in the critical assessment of data-based claims: given a claim, find useful supporting views. The goal of this task is twofold. On the one hand, we aim to assist users in finding significant evidence of phenomena of interest. On the other hand, we wish to provide them with machinery to criticize or counter given claims by extracting evidence of opposing statements. To be effective, the supporting sub-population should be significant and defined by a ``natural'' view. We discuss several measures of naturalness and propose ways of extracting the best views under each measure (and combinations thereof). The main challenge is the computational cost, as na\"ive search is infeasible. We devise anytime algorithms that deploy two main steps: (1) a preliminary construction of a ranked list of attribute combinations that are assessed using fast-to-compute features, and (2) an efficient search for the actual views based on each attribute combination. We present a thorough experimental study that shows the effectiveness of our algorithms in terms of quality and execution cost. We also present a user study to assess the usefulness of the naturalness measures.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections