Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Scientific Fact-Checking: A Survey of Resources and Approaches

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.16859 v1 pith:ECN3FDT4 submitted 2023-05-26 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords scientificfact-checkingtaskknowledgeapproachesclaimsexistingfield
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The task of fact-checking deals with assessing the veracity of factual claims based on credible evidence and background knowledge. In particular, scientific fact-checking is the variation of the task concerned with verifying claims rooted in scientific knowledge. This task has received significant attention due to the growing importance of scientific and health discussions on online platforms. Automated scientific fact-checking methods based on NLP can help combat the spread of misinformation, assist researchers in knowledge discovery, and help individuals understand new scientific breakthroughs. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of existing research in this emerging field and its related tasks. We provide a task description, discuss the construction process of existing datasets, and analyze proposed models and approaches. Based on our findings, we identify intriguing challenges and outline potential future directions to advance the field.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ClimateViz: A Benchmark for Statistical Reasoning and Fact Verification on Scientific Charts

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A large-scale benchmark shows that leading multimodal language models still underperform expert humans at verifying climate claims from scientific charts.

Pith tools