REVIEW 1 cited by
Are Large Language Models Good Fact Checkers: A Preliminary Study
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
read the original abstract
Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn significant attention due to their outstanding reasoning capabilities and extensive knowledge repository, positioning them as superior in handling various natural language processing tasks compared to other language models. In this paper, we present a preliminary investigation into the potential of LLMs in fact-checking. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate various LLMs in tackling specific fact-checking subtasks, systematically evaluating their capabilities, and conducting a comparative analysis of their performance against pre-trained and state-of-the-art low-parameter models. Experiments demonstrate that LLMs achieve competitive performance compared to other small models in most scenarios. However, they encounter challenges in effectively handling Chinese fact verification and the entirety of the fact-checking pipeline due to language inconsistencies and hallucinations. These findings underscore the need for further exploration and research to enhance the proficiency of LLMs as reliable fact-checkers, unveiling the potential capability of LLMs and the possible challenges in fact-checking tasks.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
When Scale Meets Diversity: Evaluating Language Models on Fine-Grained Multilingual Claim Verification
A 270M-parameter encoder model (XLM-R) achieves 57.7% macro-F1 on the X-Fact multilingual claim verification benchmark, beating the best tested 7-12B LLM (16.9%) and the prior state of the art (41.9%).
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.