Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating the Efficacy of Large Language Models in Detecting Fake News: A Comparative Analysis

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 2406.06584 v1 pith:J7W5YIQX submitted 2024-06-05 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords fakenewsllmslargeanalysiscomparativedetectionmistral
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In an era increasingly influenced by artificial intelligence, the detection of fake news is crucial, especially in contexts like election seasons where misinformation can have significant societal impacts. This study evaluates the effectiveness of various LLMs in identifying and filtering fake news content. Utilizing a comparative analysis approach, we tested four large LLMs -- GPT-4, Claude 3 Sonnet, Gemini Pro 1.0, and Mistral Large -- and two smaller LLMs -- Gemma 7B and Mistral 7B. By using fake news dataset samples from Kaggle, this research not only sheds light on the current capabilities and limitations of LLMs in fake news detection but also discusses the implications for developers and policymakers in enhancing AI-driven informational integrity.

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.

  1. Do people rely on ChatGPT more than their peers to detect deepfake news?

    econ.GN 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a lab deepfake-detection task, students shifted more toward ChatGPT's advice than toward peers' advice (weight-of-advice 0.59 vs 0.33), though in 2025 sessions they trusted linguistic experts slightly more than ChatGPT.

Pith tools