Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Human-centered NLP Fact-checking: Co-Designing with Fact-checkers using Matchmaking for AI

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 2308.07213 v3 pith:EJCCB7UM submitted 2023-08-14 cs.HC cs.CLcs.CY

classification cs.HCcs.CLcs.CY
keywords fact-checkerfact-checkingco-designfact-checkersresearchconceptsdesignhuman-centered
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

While many Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques have been proposed for fact-checking, both academic research and fact-checking organizations report limited adoption of such NLP work due to poor alignment with fact-checker practices, values, and needs. To address this, we investigate a co-design method, Matchmaking for AI, to enable fact-checkers, designers, and NLP researchers to collaboratively identify what fact-checker needs should be addressed by technology, and to brainstorm ideas for potential solutions. Co-design sessions we conducted with 22 professional fact-checkers yielded a set of 11 design ideas that offer a "north star", integrating fact-checker criteria into novel NLP design concepts. These concepts range from pre-bunking misinformation, efficient and personalized monitoring misinformation, proactively reducing fact-checker potential biases, and collaborative writing fact-check reports. Our work provides new insights into both human-centered fact-checking research and practice and AI co-design research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Show Me the Work: Fact-Checkers' Requirements for Explainable Automated Fact-Checking

    cs.HC 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Fact-checkers want automated fact-checking explanations that trace the reasoning path, cite checkable evidence, and clearly flag uncertainty and information gaps, not just confidence scores.

Pith tools