DS@GT at CheckThat! 2025: Exploring Retrieval and Reranking Pipelines for Scientific Claim Source Retrieval on Social Media Discourse

Hoang Thanh Thanh Truong; Jeanette Schofield; Maximilian Heil; Shuyu Tian

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 27 references

DS@GT at CheckThat! 2025: Exploring Retrieval and Reranking Pipelines for Scientific Claim Source Retrieval on Social Media Discourse

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A BM25-PyTorch retrieval plus T5 reranking pipeline achieves an MRR@5 of 0.58 for finding the scientific paper behind a tweet, beating the 0.43 baseline.

desk verdict A workmanlike shared-task report with a believable official score, but the internal tables and prose disagree often enough that the experimental comparisons need major cleanup before they can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06563 v1 pith:F74MW3YE submitted 2025-07-09 cs.IR cs.CL

Jeanette Schofield , Shuyu Tian , Hoang Thanh Thanh Truong , Maximilian Heil This is my paper

classification cs.IRcs.CL

keywords scientificclaimsourceretrievalBM25T5rerankingdataaugmentationbi-encoderfinetuningMRR@5CheckThat!2025socialmediaverification

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a working system for retrieving the scientific paper a tweet implicitly relies on, evaluated on the CheckThat! 2025 Task 4b scientific claim source retrieval benchmark. Its submitted pipeline uses BM25-PyTorch to pull 100 candidate papers and a T5 reranker to reorder them, achieving an MRR@5 of 0.58, an improvement of 0.15 over the 0.43 BM25 baseline, and 16th place in the task. Along the way the team tested six tweet rewriting and augmentation strategies, seven rerankers, and a finetuned bi-encoder; the main positive finding is that concatenating the original tweet with a formally rewritten version gave small retrieval gains, while replacing tweet text with keywords hurt. The paper argues that retrieval quality, not reranking alone, is the bottleneck for this social-media-to-science matching problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-stage retrieval-and-reranking pipeline measured by Mean Reciprocal Rank at 5 (MRR@5), the official task metric that scores how high the first correct paper appears in the top five results. BM25-PyTorch supplies the candidate set of 100 papers per tweet, and a T5 reranker then reorders the candidates. The same scaffold is used to isolate the effect of data-augmentation choices and reranker selection: the augmentation experiments vary the tweet text while holding retrieval and reranking fixed, and the reranker experiments hold retrieval fixed, which is what lets the paper attribute performance differences to each stage.

What would settle it

Run the seven rerankers and the concat-with-formal augmentation multiple times on the same development split with different random seeds, and report the distribution of MRR@5 scores; if T5 is not consistently above the best cross-encoder and the concat advantage does not replicate, the model-selection claims are not stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a conventional two-stage pipeline, lexical BM25 retrieval followed by a large text-to-text (T5) reranker, with no data augmentation, is a strong and simple solution for linking COVID-19 social-media claims to CORD-19 papers, reaching MRR@5 0.58 versus the 0.43 baseline. From development-set comparisons, the paper also claims that concatenating original tweets with formally rewritten versions improves MRR@5 by a small margin, while replacing tweet text with rewritten or keyword-only versions degrades it, and that rerankers trained on human-generated question-answer data outperform rerankers trained on Google-query data. Finetuning the bi-encoder on gold plus silver data did not improve retrieval in the configurations tried.

Load-bearing premise

The paper chooses its final pipeline and ranks the seven rerankers using single-run development-set MRR@5 scores with no variance estimate or significance test, so if those scores fluctuate from run to run, the claimed 0.01-level differences and the ranking of rerankers could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For this task, retrieval with BM25-PyTorch plus T5 reranking is a deployable combination that lifts MRR@5 from 0.43 to 0.58 without any data augmentation.
Concatenating a formally rewritten tweet with the original text is the only augmentation direction with a positive sign, while replacing tweet text with formal rewrites or keyword lists is counterproductive.
Reranker quality transfers less across training-data sources: the MS-Marco-trained rerankers beat the GooAQ-trained rerankers by a wide margin on this CORD-19 corpus.
The submitted pipeline still trails the task leaders' 0.68 MRR@5, and all bi-encoder finetuning attempts failed to beat the off-the-shelf model, so improving first-stage retrieval is the identified bottleneck.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The concat-with-formal result suggests that expanding queries with multiple register-matched paraphrases, rather than choosing a single rewrite, is a promising direction worth testing on other claim-retrieval datasets.
Because the paper reports single-run development scores without variance estimates, the 0.01-level differences that drive model selection should be treated as provisional until replicated with multiple runs or significance testing.
The paper gives two different team counts (30 in the abstract, 20 in the results section), so the 16th-place rank should be confirmed against the official CheckThat! 2025 overview before being cited elsewhere.
If abstract length varying from 2 to 1800 words distorts lexical matching, summarizing CORD-19 abstracts could be a cheap retrieval-stage improvement; the paper names this as future work, and the concat augmentation results make it plausible.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline: this is a standard shared-task system description, and the one number that matters is the official test-set MRR@5 of 0.58. That is externally anchored and plausible. The useful bit is the empirical comparison: concatenating original tweets with formal rewrites gives a small retrieval bump, rewriting tweets outright hurts, and T5 plus the MS-Marco cross-encoder beat the GooAQ rerankers. The bi-encoder finetuning experiments are also a useful negative result. Code is on GitHub, so the pipeline is reproducible in principle.

The soft spots are real and numerous. The abstract says the team ranked 16th out of 30 teams; Section 5 says 16 of 20. Section 5.1 claims concatenation improved MRR@5 by roughly 0.03 after retrieval and 0.01 after reranking, but Table 2 shows roughly 0.007 after retrieval and 0.03 after reranking. Section 6.2 claims all MS-Marco rerankers beat all GooAQ rerankers, but Table 3 has an MS-Marco model at 0.4194, below the GooAQ ModernBERT-large at 0.5471. Section 4.6 says all finetuned bi-encoders underperform the unfinetuned one, but Table 4 shows the hard-negative variant reranking at 0.616, above the base 0.612. The baseline of 0.43 is never tied to a concrete configuration, and the T5 checkpoint is left unspecified. All comparisons are single-run, with no variance or significance testing.

None of this necessarily invalidates the official 0.58, which came from the shared task organizers. But it does mean the paper's own experimental conclusions cannot be taken at face value. The inconsistencies are not cosmetic; they are load-bearing for several of the paper's claims, and they suggest the authors were not careful with the tables. A reader who wants to use these numbers will have to go back to the code and rerun things.

Who is this for? Other CheckThat! participants and anyone building a claim-source retrieval pipeline for social media. It deserves referee time because it is a legitimate shared-task run with an official score, and the empirical comparisons, once corrected, would be informative. But the current draft needs major revisions: reconcile every table with the prose, specify the baseline and the T5 model, and add error bars or at least state that the differences are unmeasured.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but require a corrected and internally consistent version before anything gets published.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the DS@GT team's participation in the CLEF 2025 CheckThat! Lab Task 4b, Scientific Claim Source Retrieval. The authors describe experiments with six data-augmentation strategies, seven retrieval/reranking pipelines based on BM25 or BM25-PyTorch with various cross-encoders and T5, and bi-encoder finetuning with a silver dataset. Their submitted run uses BM25-PyTorch retrieval with T5 reranking and no data augmentation, and they report an official test-set MRR@5 of 0.58, a rank of 16, and an improvement of 0.15 over a baseline of 0.43. The paper also presents dev-set comparisons in Tables 2-4 and discusses the implications for augmentation, reranker selection, and bi-encoder finetuning.

Significance. If the reported official score is correct, the paper documents a working shared-task system with a mid-tier result and a public code release, and it contributes useful negative results about data augmentation and bi-encoder finetuning for scientific claim source retrieval. The main value is the empirical comparison across rerankers and augmentation strategies on a shared benchmark, rather than a new method. However, the paper currently contains several internal numerical and textual contradictions that weaken the reliability of its experimental conclusions; these are fixable but must be addressed before the results can be taken at face value.

major comments (6)

[Section 5.1 / Table 2] The prose numeric claims contradict the table. The text says Concat experiments improved by roughly 0.03 after retrieval and by 0.01 after reranking, but Table 2 shows improvements of 0.006-0.008 after retrieval (0.6106 and 0.6092 vs. 0.6028, with Concat w/ All actually decreasing to 0.5618) and improvements of 0.029-0.034 after reranking (0.5823, 0.5859, 0.5812 vs. 0.5521). The text also says replacements decreased by 0.06 or more, but Replace w/ English Formal Rewritten decreased by only 0.0409 after reranking. These numbers should be corrected because Section 6.1 draws conclusions from them.
[Section 6.2 / Table 3] The statement that "the 3 models trained on the MS Marco dataset performed significantly better than those trained on the GooAQ dataset" is contradicted by Table 3, where the MS-Marco-based reranker-msmarco-MiniLM-L12-H384-uncased-lambdaloss has MRR@5 0.4194, below the GooAQ-based reranker-ModernBERT-large-gooaq-bce at 0.5471. This overgeneralization should be revised.
[Section 5.3 / Table 4] The claim that all three finetuned bi-encoders performed worse than the unfinetuned bi-encoder is only true for the retrieval-stage MRR@5; after reranking, "Gold dataset + hard negatives from silver data" (0.616) exceeds "No Finetuning" (0.612). Please state explicitly that the conclusion refers to retrieval-stage performance, or reconcile the numbers. In addition, the text's "0.011 less" is arithmetically inconsistent with Table 4, since 0.428 - 0.407 = 0.021.
[Abstract / Section 5] The reported rank is "16th out of 30 teams" in the abstract and "16 out of 20 teams" in Section 5. Only one of these can be correct; please fix and ensure consistency with the official overview.
[Section 5 / Abstract] The "baseline of 0.43" used to compute the improvement of 0.15 is never defined. If it is the organizers' official BM25 baseline, please cite the overview paper; if it is a locally computed baseline, please report the retrieval configuration. Without this definition, the headline improvement is not independently verifiable.
[Section 5.2 / Table 3] All reranker comparisons appear to be single-run dev-set MRR@5 values, with no repeated runs, variance estimate, or significance test, and the dev split used is not specified. The decision to select T5 is based on differences as small as 0.0116 (0.6590 vs. 0.6474), so the comparison should be framed as preliminary or supplemented with error bars/bootstrap intervals.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.2 / Section 4.4] There are typos: "colleicition" should be "collection", "it's speed" should be "its speed", and "huamn" should be "human".
[Section 4.6] The two-phase training procedure is described twice in nearly identical paragraphs; condense to a single description.
[Table 2] The "Replace w/ Keywords" row has a missing MRR@5 after retrieval value; please state whether it was not computed or is intentionally omitted.
[Section 6.2] The phrase "results section, 3" contains a stray character and should read as a reference to Table 3.
[Throughout] Model names are used inconsistently, e.g., "ms-marco-MiniLM-L6-v2" versus "ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2" and "BM25-Pytorch" versus "BM25-PyTorch"; please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported results are empirical shared-task scores anchored to external dev/test labels, with no fitted parameter or self-citation masquerading as a prediction.

full rationale

This is a shared-task system description that reports empirical retrieval and reranking experiments scored against the organizers' fixed dev-set labels and a held-out test set. The headline claim (MRR@5 of 0.58, rank 16) is an externally evaluated test-set result, not a quantity derived from the paper's own definitions. Pipeline choices, such as BM25-Pytorch with T5 reranking, were selected from measured MRR@5 values; those measurements are inputs to the comparison, but they are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no equation in the paper defines one reported score in terms of another. The bi-encoder finetuning experiments are evaluated independently against the unfinetuned model and against dev labels. Citations to prior CheckThat!/CLEF overviews and to MS MARCO, GooAQ, and model-card sources provide external context, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation by this paper's authors. The numerical inconsistencies in Tables 2-4 are potential reliability and correctness concerns, but they do not constitute circularity because the reported scores depend on external labels rather than on the paper's assumptions. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity: its central claim is an empirical evaluation result, not an equation or definition that reproduces its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper makes no theoretical derivation, so the ledger lists the main modeling and evaluation assumptions plus the one hand-chosen numeric hyperparameter that clearly affects results. No invented entities or fitted scientific parameters appear.

free parameters (1)

number of retrieved documents for reranking (top_k) = 100
Chosen by hand for all pipelines (Section 4.2); affects the reranker candidate pool and the resulting MRR@5 values.

assumptions (4)

standard math MRR@k as defined in Eq. (1) is the official evaluation metric and is correctly implemented by the shared task scorer.
The paper relies on the organizer's scorer for its central MRR@5 numbers (Section 4.1).
domain assumption Dev-set results are a reliable proxy for test-set performance; the final pipeline was selected using dev MRR@5 without significance testing.
The final submission uses T5 reranking based on dev-set MRR@5 of 0.659 (Table 3), while the test result is 0.58 (Section 5).
domain assumption Concatenating title and abstract is a sufficient document representation for retrieval of CORD-19 papers.
All pipelines use title plus abstract as the paper representation (Section 4.2); no ablation of document fields is provided.
domain assumption The relevance labels in the train and dev query sets are accurate.
The evaluation assumes the gold labels provided by organizers are correct; no label quality assessment is included.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DS@GT at CheckThat! 2025: Exploring Retrieval and Reranking Pipelines for Scientific Claim Source Retrieval on Social Media Discourse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F74MW3YE

@misc{pith2026250706563,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DS@GT at CheckThat! 2025: Exploring Retrieval and Reranking Pipelines for Scientific Claim Source Retrieval on Social Media Discourse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F74MW3YE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06563}
}

read the original abstract

Social media users often make scientific claims without citing where these claims come from, generating a need to verify these claims. This paper details work done by the DS@GT team for CLEF 2025 CheckThat! Lab Task 4b Scientific Claim Source Retrieval which seeks to find relevant scientific papers based on implicit references in tweets. Our team explored 6 different data augmentation techniques, 7 different retrieval and reranking pipelines, and finetuned a bi-encoder. Achieving an MRR@5 of 0.58, our team ranked 16th out of 30 teams for the CLEF 2025 CheckThat! Lab Task 4b, and improvement of 0.15 over the BM25 baseline of 0.43. Our code is available on Github at https://github.com/dsgt-arc/checkthat-2025-swd/tree/main/subtask-4b.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06563 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Two-stage document retrieval pipeline. In this section, we focus on the bi-encoder and cross-encoder approaches using bi-encoder/msmarcodistilbert-base-v4 and cross-encoder/ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2, respectively [23, 12]. Both are provided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Kbaier, A

D. Kbaier, A. Kane, M. McJury, I. Kenny, Prevalence of health misinformation on social me- dia—challenges and mitigation before, during, and beyond the covid-19 pandemic: Scoping litera- ture review, Journal of Medical Internet Research 26 (2024) e38786. URL: https://www.jmir.org/ 2024/1/e38786. doi:10.2196/38786

doi:10.2196/38786 2024
[2]

Hafid, W

S. Hafid, W. Ammar, S. Bringay, K. Todorov, Cite-worthiness detection on social media: A preliminary study, Natural Scientific Language Processing and Research Knowledge Graphs 19–30 (2024)

work page 2024
[3]

Hafid, Y

S. Hafid, Y. S. Kartal, S. Schellhammer, K. Boland, D. Dimitrov, S. Bringay, K. Todorov, S. Dietze, Overview of the CLEF-2025 CheckThat! lab task 4 on scientific web discourse, in: [4], 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Faggioli, N

G. Faggioli, N. Ferro, P. Rosso, D. Spina (Eds.), Working Notes of CLEF 2025 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, CLEF 2025, Madrid, Spain, 2025

work page 2025
[5]

Nakov, A

P. Nakov, A. Barrón-Cedeño, G. Da San Martino, F. Alam, R. Míguez, T. Caselli, M. Kutlu, W. Za- ghouani, C. Li, S. Shaar, H. Mubarak, A. Nikolov, Y. S. Kartal, Overview of the CLEF-2022 CheckThat! lab task 1 on identifying relevant claims in tweets, in: [6], 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Faggioli, N

G. Faggioli, N. Ferro, A. Hanburg, M. Potthast (Eds.), Working Notes of CLEF 2022 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, CLEF 2022, Bologna, Italy, 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Faggioli, N

G. Faggioli, N. Ferro, P. Galuščáková, A. G. Seco de Herrera (Eds.), Working Notes of CLEF 2024 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, CLEF 2024, Grenoble, France, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Wright, I

D. Wright, I. Augenstein, Citeworth: Cite-worthiness detection for improved scientific document understanding (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 27 references

[9]

Hafid, S

S. Hafid, S. Schellhammer, S. Bringay, K. Todorov, S. Dietze, Scitweets - a dataset and annotation framework for detecting scientific online discourse, in: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, CIKM ’22, Association for Com...

2022
[10]

URL: https://en

Wikipedia contributors, Okapi bm25 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2025. URL: https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi_BM25, accessed: 2025-07-07

2025
[11]

Nguyen, M

T. Nguyen, M. Rosenberg, X. Song, J. Gao, S. Tiwary, R. Majumder, L. Deng, Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset, CoRR abs/1611.09268 (2016). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09268

2016 arXiv
[12]

C. T. Hugging Face, cross -encoder/ms-marco-MiniLM-L6-v2, https://huggingface.co/ cross-encoder/ms-marco-MiniLM-L6-v2, 2025. Model card; accessed: 2025-07-07

2025
[13]

Arsen, the Hugging Face Community, reranker -msmarco-modernbert-base-lambdaloss, Hugging Face model hub, 2025

T. Arsen, the Hugging Face Community, reranker -msmarco-modernbert-base-lambdaloss, Hugging Face model hub, 2025. URL: https://huggingface.co/tomaarsen/ reranker-msmarco-ModernBERT-base-lambdaloss

2025
[14]

Arsen, the Hugging Face Community, reranker-msmarco-minilm-l12-h384-uncased- lambdaloss, Hugging Face model hub, 2025

T. Arsen, the Hugging Face Community, reranker-msmarco-minilm-l12-h384-uncased- lambdaloss, Hugging Face model hub, 2025. URL: https://huggingface.co/tomaarsen/ reranker-msmarco-MiniLM-L12-H384-uncased-lambdaloss

2025
[15]

Khashabi, A

D. Khashabi, A. Ng, T. Khot, A. Sabharwal, H. Hajishirzi, C. Callison-Burch, Gooaq: Open question answering with diverse answer types, CoRR abs/2104.08727 (2021). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2104.08727. arXiv:2104.08727

2021 arXiv
[16]

URL: https://huggingface.co/akr2002/reranker-ModernBERT-base-gooaq-bce

akr2002, the Hugging Face Community, reranker-modernbert-base-gooaq-bce, Hugging Face model hub, 2025. URL: https://huggingface.co/akr2002/reranker-ModernBERT-base-gooaq-bce

2025
[17]

Arsen, the Hugging Face Community, reranker-modernbert-large-gooaq-bce, Hugging Face model hub, 2025

T. Arsen, the Hugging Face Community, reranker-modernbert-large-gooaq-bce, Hugging Face model hub, 2025. URL: https://huggingface.co/tomaarsen/reranker-ModernBERT-large-gooaq-bce

2025
[18]

Arsen, the Hugging Face Community, reranker-neobert-gooaq-bce, Hugging Face model hub,

T. Arsen, the Hugging Face Community, reranker-neobert-gooaq-bce, Hugging Face model hub,
[19]

Raffel, N

C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y. Zhou, W. Li, P. J. Liu, Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer, Journal of Machine Learning Research 21 (2020) 1–67. URL: http://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-074.html

2020
[20]

URL: https://www.aiaaic.org/aiaaic-repository/ ai-algorithmic-and-automation-incidents/c4-dataset, last updated Oct 2024

AIAAIC Repository, C4 (colossal clean crawled corpus) dataset, AI, Algorithmic & Au- tomation Incidents and Issues (AIAAIC), 2023. URL: https://www.aiaaic.org/aiaaic-repository/ ai-algorithmic-and-automation-incidents/c4-dataset, last updated Oct 2024

2023
[21]

Clavié, the AnswerDotAI team, rerankers: A lightweight python library to unify ranking methods, GitHub repository, 2024

B. Clavié, the AnswerDotAI team, rerankers: A lightweight python library to unify ranking methods, GitHub repository, 2024. URL: https://github.com/AnswerDotAI/rerankers, version 0.6.0

2024
[22]

Clavié, rerankers: A lightweight python library to unify ranking methods, arXiv preprint abs/2408.17344 (2024)

B. Clavié, rerankers: A lightweight python library to unify ranking methods, arXiv preprint abs/2408.17344 (2024). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.17344, arXiv:2408.17344

2024 arXiv
[23]

URL: https://huggingface.co/sentence-transformers/msmarco-distilbert-base-v4

Sentence-Transformers Team, msmarco-distilbert-base-v4, Hugging Face model hub, 2025. URL: https://huggingface.co/sentence-transformers/msmarco-distilbert-base-v4

2025
[24]

Reimers, I

N. Reimers, I. Gurevych, Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks, in: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084

2019 arXiv
[25]

Thakur, N

N. Thakur, N. Reimers, J. Daxenberger, I. Gurevych, Augmented sbert: Data augmentation method for improving bi-encoders for pairwise sentence scoring tasks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08240 (2020). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08240

2020 arXiv
[26]

URL: http://www

PACE, Partnership for an Advanced Computing Environment (PACE), 2017. URL: http://www. pace.gatech.edu

2017
[2025]

URL: https://huggingface.co/tomaarsen/reranker-NeoBERT-gooaq-bce

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Kbaier, A

D. Kbaier, A. Kane, M. McJury, I. Kenny, Prevalence of health misinformation on social me- dia—challenges and mitigation before, during, and beyond the covid-19 pandemic: Scoping litera- ture review, Journal of Medical Internet Research 26 (2024) e38786. URL: https://www.jmir.org/ 2024/1/e38786. doi:10.2196/38786

doi:10.2196/38786 2024

[2] [2]

Hafid, W

S. Hafid, W. Ammar, S. Bringay, K. Todorov, Cite-worthiness detection on social media: A preliminary study, Natural Scientific Language Processing and Research Knowledge Graphs 19–30 (2024)

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Hafid, Y

S. Hafid, Y. S. Kartal, S. Schellhammer, K. Boland, D. Dimitrov, S. Bringay, K. Todorov, S. Dietze, Overview of the CLEF-2025 CheckThat! lab task 4 on scientific web discourse, in: [4], 2025

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Faggioli, N

G. Faggioli, N. Ferro, P. Rosso, D. Spina (Eds.), Working Notes of CLEF 2025 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, CLEF 2025, Madrid, Spain, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Nakov, A

P. Nakov, A. Barrón-Cedeño, G. Da San Martino, F. Alam, R. Míguez, T. Caselli, M. Kutlu, W. Za- ghouani, C. Li, S. Shaar, H. Mubarak, A. Nikolov, Y. S. Kartal, Overview of the CLEF-2022 CheckThat! lab task 1 on identifying relevant claims in tweets, in: [6], 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Faggioli, N

G. Faggioli, N. Ferro, A. Hanburg, M. Potthast (Eds.), Working Notes of CLEF 2022 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, CLEF 2022, Bologna, Italy, 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Faggioli, N

G. Faggioli, N. Ferro, P. Galuščáková, A. G. Seco de Herrera (Eds.), Working Notes of CLEF 2024 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, CLEF 2024, Grenoble, France, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Wright, I

D. Wright, I. Augenstein, Citeworth: Cite-worthiness detection for improved scientific document understanding (2021)

work page 2021