Fine-tuned GPT-3.5-turbo agrees with expert climate coders on social media claims as often as the experts agree with each other (alpha=0.89), but the study's open-source benchmark is weakened by a flawed prompt and random replacement of invalid responses.
Automated Fact-Checking of Climate Change Claims with Large Language Models
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
This paper presents Climinator, a novel AI-based tool designed to automate the fact-checking of climate change claims. Utilizing an array of Large Language Models (LLMs) informed by authoritative sources like the IPCC reports and peer-reviewed scientific literature, Climinator employs an innovative Mediator-Advocate framework. This design allows Climinator to effectively synthesize varying scientific perspectives, leading to robust, evidence-based evaluations. Our model demonstrates remarkable accuracy when testing claims collected from Climate Feedback and Skeptical Science. Notably, when integrating an advocate with a climate science denial perspective in our framework, Climinator's iterative debate process reliably converges towards scientific consensus, underscoring its adeptness at reconciling diverse viewpoints into science-based, factual conclusions. While our research is subject to certain limitations and necessitates careful interpretation, our approach holds significant potential. We hope to stimulate further research and encourage exploring its applicability in other contexts, including political fact-checking and legal domains.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CY 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Enhancing LLMs for Governance with Human Oversight: Evaluating and Aligning LLMs on Expert Classification of Climate Misinformation for Detecting False or Misleading Claims about Climate Change
Fine-tuned GPT-3.5-turbo agrees with expert climate coders on social media claims as often as the experts agree with each other (alpha=0.89), but the study's open-source benchmark is weakened by a flawed prompt and random replacement of invalid responses.