Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 3 minor 5 cited by

XFacta: Contemporary, Real-World Dataset and Evaluation for Multimodal Misinformation Detection with Multimodal LLMs

T0 review · 6 major / 3 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 This paper introduces XFacta, a benchmark of 2,400 real posts from X/Twitter dated after January 2024, and argues that multimodal LLMs can no longer detect misinformation by memorization alone—strong performance requires retrieving…

desk verdict XFacta is a useful new benchmark, but the paper's headline claim that evidence retrieval is necessary is confounded by the fact that real posts come from major news outlets and fake posts from random accounts. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09999 v1 pith:LONR65TT submitted 2025-08-04 cs.CL cs.LG

Yuzhuo Xiao , Zeyu Han , Yuhan Wang , Huaizu Jiang This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords multimodalmisinformationdetectionMLLMevaluationevidenceretrievalfact-checkingbenchmarkcontemporarydatasetout-of-contextX/Twittermulti-stepreasoning
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 introduces XFacta, a dataset of 2,400 real X/Twitter posts (1,200 real, 1,200 fake) dated after January 2024, built to evaluate multimodal misinformation detection by multimodal large language models (MLLMs) without the memorization bias of older benchmarks. The central claim is that contemporary, real-world data forces MLLMs to rely on evidence retrieval rather than internal knowledge: GPT-4o's accuracy on the dev set falls to 70.8% without evidence but reaches 91.3% with retrieved evidence and multi-step reasoning. This matters because existing benchmarks are either outdated (allowing models to memorize events) or synthetically generated (not reflecting real misinformation patterns), leaving the field without a clear way to locate the bottleneck between evidence retrieval and reasoning. The paper positions XFacta as a testbed for that question and reports that image-to-text evidence is the most informative signal, especially for out-of-context misinformation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the XFacta dataset itself: 2,400 posts from X dated between January 2024 and April 2025, with fake posts curated from content flagged by BBC-certified journalists and X Community Notes, and real posts from CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, and BBC. Dataset construction aligns real and fake posts by topic and by image-feature distribution (using SigLip embeddings and optimal transport) to reduce visual bias. The evaluation machinery is a modular pipeline that tests eight evidence-retrieval strategies — unimodal text retrieval, cross-modal text-to-image and image-to-text retrieval, LLM-generated query search, and search-engine variants — against a no-evidence baseline, and then tests four reasoning approaches (chain-of-thought, prompt ensembles, self-consistency, and multi-step reasoning) on top of the best evidence, plus post-processing steps (domain filtering and LLM-based evidence extraction).

What would settle it

The central claim could be tested by running the no-evidence baseline on XFacta with a future MLLM whose training data includes posts after April 2025; if its accuracy without evidence matches or exceeds the evidence-augmented level (91.3% on the dev set), the claim that contemporaneity necessitates evidence retrieval would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a contemporary, real-world dataset makes external evidence retrieval both necessary and sufficient for strong MLLM-based misinformation detection. On XFacta, GPT-4o's no-evidence accuracy is 70.8% on the dev set, with a conservative tendency to label ambiguous posts as fake; adding retrieved evidence, particularly image-to-text evidence that traces an image to its original context, raises accuracy to 87.1%, and combining this with multi-step reasoning (invoking the model separately on each evidence type, then aggregating) reaches 91.3% on the dev set and 89.2% on a held-out Snopes set. The paper interprets this as showing that the bottleneck in current misinformation detectors lies in evidence retrieval, and that older benchmarks overestimate MLLM performance by allowing memorization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ground-truth labels are correct and that post dates after January 2024 guarantee the models have not memorized the posts, since neither claim is verified by a contamination check or independent re-labeling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A misinformation detector evaluated on XFacta cannot achieve high accuracy through memorization; strong performance requires external evidence, so future benchmarks should adopt contemporaneity as a design criterion.
  • Image-to-text evidence retrieval is the most informative evidence type, particularly for out-of-context misinformation, because it can trace an image back to its original event.
  • Multi-step reasoning, where the model analyzes each evidence type separately and then aggregates, outperforms single-pass chain-of-thought on this benchmark.
  • Fine-tuned specialist models trained on older datasets generalize poorly to XFacta, while zero-shot GPT-4o with evidence and multi-step reasoning achieves the highest accuracy the paper reports.
  • A semi-automatic detection-in-the-loop process can keep the dataset contemporary by flagging new posts for human review, as demonstrated on 500 posts from June–July 2025.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's contemporaneity argument implies a time-limited guarantee: once future MLLMs are trained on data that includes XFacta's posts, the no-evidence baseline should rise, and the benchmark's ability to force retrieval will erode; a natural maintenance strategy is to keep sliding the data window forward.
  • The label sources (X Community Notes and BBC journalist flags, plus four mainstream news outlets for real posts) may embed a systematic political or mainstream-media bias; re-labeling a random subset with professional fact-checkers would test whether XFacta's rankings are stable under label noise.
  • The paper's finding that image-to-text evidence is best for out-of-context misinformation suggests a deployment pattern for real-world fact-checking systems: prioritize reverse image search over keyword search when verifying claims with images.
  • The reported 'overly strict' behavior—multi-step reasoning flags some real posts that use unrelated images as fake—points to a definitional tension between intentional misinformation and image-text inconsistency; future work could separate these two signals to avoid penalizing legitimate repurposed media.
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.

Referee Report

6 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces XFacta, a dataset of 2,400 multimodal posts collected from X/Twitter after January 2024 (1,200 real, 1,200 fake), with human-curated labels, topic and misinformation-type annotations, and a semi-automatic detection-in-the-loop expansion component. The authors evaluate MLLM-based detection strategies along two axes, evidence retrieval and reasoning, on a 240-post development set and report that GPT-4o without evidence achieves only about 70% accuracy on XFacta while older datasets can be solved by memorization. With retrieved text evidence and multi-step reasoning, their GPT-4o pipeline reaches 91.3% accuracy on the dev set and 89.2% on a newly collected Snopes set, which they describe as state-of-the-art on XFacta.

Significance. If the claims are validated, XFacta would be a useful complement to existing benchmarks: it is contemporary, real-world, multimodal, publicly released, and annotated with fine-grained misinformation types (deepfake, image out-of-context, misleading text). The systematic comparison of evidence-retrieval strategies and reasoning methods is a strength, as is the explicit release of code and data. However, the central evidence-necessity claim is currently confounded by source asymmetry between real and fake posts, and the headline accuracy differences on the 240-post dev set are within binomial sampling noise. The benchmark is promising, but the current manuscript does not yet establish the claimed bottleneck or the SOTA ranking robustly.

major comments (6)
  1. [§3.1, Table 2] The central claim that evidence retrieval is necessary for contemporary misinformation is confounded by source asymmetry. Real posts are drawn exclusively from CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, and BBC, while fake posts come from arbitrary X accounts flagged by BBC-certified journalists or Community Notes. These two populations differ dramatically in search-engine footprint, visual branding, and linguistic style. In Table 2, the entire evidence gain for GPT-4o comes from the real class (R. Acc. 50.8 with no evidence to 97.5 with T→Et), while fake accuracy drops from 90.8 to 76.7. This is exactly the pattern expected if T→Et merely retrieves the indexed article for an institutional post and finds no authoritative source for an anonymous rumor account. The topic and image-distribution matching described in §3.1 cannot remove this outlet-level confound. Please report results separately for posts with strong versus weak online footprints, or otherwise control for source searchability, before concluding that evidence is the bottleneck.
  2. [§4.1.2, Tables 2 and 5] The development set contains only 240 posts (120 real, 120 fake), and the headline comparisons are one-to-three point differences: for example, 91.3 for multi-step reasoning versus 90.0 for prompt ensembles in Table 5, and 87.1 versus 84.2 for T→Et via Google versus DuckDuckGo in Table 2. With n=240, the standard error of an accuracy estimate is approximately 3 percentage points, so these differences are within binomial sampling noise. No confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple-run variances are reported. Because the paper's main conclusions about optimal retrieval and reasoning strategies rest on these small gaps, the claims need either a much larger dev set, error bars, or statistical tests.
  3. [§3.1 and §5] The ground-truth labels are not independently validated. Fake labels come from BBC-certified journalists and X Community Notes, real labels from four major outlets, yet no inter-annotator agreement, adjudication procedure, or audit of Community Notes accuracy is reported. If Community Notes are noisy, every model ranking on XFacta is built on noisy labels. Additionally, the claim that post-2024 dates rule out memorization relies on GPT-4o's October 2023 cutoff; the paper provides no contamination checks (e.g., n-gram overlap with training corpora), and other evaluated models have different and undisclosed cutoffs. The evidence in Table 8 that older datasets are solved by memorization does not establish that XFacta itself is not memorized.
  4. [§4.1.1, Table 2] All evidence-dependent results depend on live Google and DuckDuckGo searches at evaluation time. The retrieved evidence is not snapshotted or released, so the numbers in Tables 2 and 4 are not reproducible or stable over time. The domain filter is said to exclude 'domains used in dataset curation to avoid leakage,' but the excluded list is not provided, which also makes the post-processing results hard to reproduce. Releasing timestamped retrieved evidence, or a fixed search corpus, would address this concern.
  5. [§5, Tables 6 and 7] The version of the manuscript provided for review references Table 6 and Table 7 in Section 5, but neither table appears in the text. The claims that larger models always achieve higher accuracy and that the proposed pipeline establishes SOTA accuracy on XFacta therefore cannot be verified from the submitted material. Please restore the missing tables, or remove the unsupported assertions if the tables are not part of the intended submission.
  6. [§6] In the detector-assisted expansion case study, 500 posts are crawled and the detector labels 265 as fake and 235 as real, with explanations intended to 'assist human reviewers.' The text does not state whether these model-produced labels were actually independently verified by humans before being released as part of the XFacta expansion. If unadjudicated model labels are included in the released dataset, the expansion inherits the detector's bias and the 'detection-in-the-loop' claim is not fully supported. Please clarify the verification protocol and, if applicable, mark model-generated labels separately from human-verified labels.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistencies: 'stragety' (§4.1.1), 'strategis' (§4.1.2), 'VERITR' in Table 8 (should be VERITE), and the inconsistent capitalization of 'Newsclipping' / 'NewsCLIPpings'. Please proofread the manuscript.
  2. [§4.1.1] The sentence 'we replace the search engine used strategies 6 and 7 with DuckDuckGo in strategies 1 and 2' appears to have the strategy numbers reversed; strategies 6 and 7 are the DuckDuckGo versions of strategies 1 and 2 in Table 2.
  3. [§3.2] The text says a random split creates 120 real and 120 fake dev posts, but the paper does not state whether all reported dev-set numbers are on the same fixed split and whether the split is released. Please specify this to enable exact replication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: XFacta is an empirical benchmark and the evidence-necessity and SOTA claims rest on held-out evaluations rather than fitted or self-cited inputs.

full rationale

XFacta is a dataset-and-evaluation paper, not a derivation. The central claims—that contemporary posts reduce memorization bias and that evidence retrieval helps MLLM detection—are supported by direct experiments: Table 2 contrasts no-evidence and evidence conditions on the dev set, and Tables 6–7 evaluate the chosen pipeline on the disjoint test set against external baselines. No parameter is fitted to the evidence/no-evidence gap and then re-reported as a prediction; the best strategy is selected on dev and transferred to test, which is standard model selection rather than circularity. The detection-in-the-loop expansion uses detector suggestions, but the paper states that human reviewers verify predictions before adding posts, and the added posts are not used to re-fit the detector, so the loop is not self-justifying. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via prior work. The concern that real posts come only from CNN, Fox, Guardian, and BBC while fake posts come from arbitrary X accounts is a genuine external-validity confound, but it is not a circular step: the low no-evidence accuracy is measured empirically, not constructed by definition. That source-asymmetry issue belongs in a correctness or robustness review rather than in the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The evaluation rests on domain assumptions about label reliability, no train/test contamination from post dates, usefulness of live search evidence, representativeness of real posts from four outlets, and image distribution matching. No numeric free parameters are fitted, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption X Community Notes and BBC-certified journalist flags provide accurate ground-truth labels for fake posts.
    Section 3.1 uses these sources to identify fake posts, then adds manual review. If a flag is incorrect, the benchmark label is wrong.
  • domain assumption Posts dated after January 1, 2024 are outside the training data of the evaluated MLLMs.
    Section 3.2 and Section 5 rely on this to claim the dataset avoids memorization; no contamination check is performed.
  • domain assumption Google and DuckDuckGo search results provide reliable, relevant evidence at evaluation time.
    Section 4.1.1 assumes retrieved evidence supports verification; search results are time-dependent and variable.
  • domain assumption Real posts from CNN, Fox News, The Guardian, and BBC are representative of real-world real news posts on X.
    Section 3.1 selects real posts only from these outlets, while fake posts come from rumor spreaders, leaving possible source bias.
  • domain assumption Optimal Transport matching yields comparable image distributions between real and fake sets.
    Section 3.1 uses SigLip features and Optimal Transport to align image distributions; failures here would add visual bias to the evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XFacta: Contemporary, Real-World Dataset and Evaluation for Multimodal Misinformation Detection with Multimodal LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LONR65TT

@misc{pith2026250809999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XFacta: Contemporary, Real-World Dataset and Evaluation for Multimodal Misinformation Detection with Multimodal LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LONR65TT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09999}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid spread of multimodal misinformation on social media calls for more effective and robust detection methods. Recent advances leveraging multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown the potential in addressing this challenge. However, it remains unclear exactly where the bottleneck of existing approaches lies (evidence retrieval v.s. reasoning), hindering the further advances in this field. On the dataset side, existing benchmarks either contain outdated events, leading to evaluation bias due to discrepancies with contemporary social media scenarios as MLLMs can simply memorize these events, or artificially synthetic, failing to reflect real-world misinformation patterns. Additionally, it lacks comprehensive analyses of MLLM-based model design strategies. To address these issues, we introduce XFacta, a contemporary, real-world dataset that is better suited for evaluating MLLM-based detectors. We systematically evaluate various MLLM-based misinformation detection strategies, assessing models across different architectures and scales, as well as benchmarking against existing detection methods. Building on these analyses, we further enable a semi-automatic detection-in-the-loop framework that continuously updates XFacta with new content to maintain its contemporary relevance. Our analysis provides valuable insights and practices for advancing the field of multimodal misinformation detection. The code and data have been released.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. VeriTaS: The First Dynamic Benchmark for Multimodal Automated Fact-Checking

    cs.IR 2026-01 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    VeriTaS is the first dynamic benchmark for multimodal automated fact-checking that updates quarterly with real-world claims and a standardized scoring scheme to resist data leakage.

  2. ReMMD: Realistic Multilingual Multi-Image Agentic Verification for Multimodal Misinformation Detection

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    ReMMD presents ReMMDBench (500 samples, 2756 images, five languages, five-way veracity) and ReMMD-Agent, which achieves 41.80% accuracy and 39.12% macro-F1 on five-way classification with GPT-5.2 while cutting costs v...

  3. Verification-Notebook Learning for Source-Aware Multimodal Misinformation Detection

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Verification-Notebook Learning distills labeled multimodal verification experience into a compact fixed notebook that lifts frozen-LVLM source-aware misinformation detection above prompting, cases, and agents.

  4. Novel Claim or D\'ej\`a Vu? Rethinking "Contamination-Free'' Dynamic Evaluation for Multimodal Automated Fact-Checking

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Post-cut-off MAFC claims remain 17–29% potentially contaminated; contamination inflates Macro-F1 by up to 11.34 points and can change model rankings.

  5. Evidence Triangulation for Multimodal Fact-Checking in the Wild

    cs.MM 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    X-POSE is a real-world multimodal fact-checking benchmark from X posts and news articles; TRENT is a model with parallel cross-attention and entailment/contradiction fusion that outperforms prior specialized models and VLMs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Jiahui Geng, Yova Kementchedjhieva, Preslav Nakov, and Iryna Gurevych

    URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/paper/2016/file/ 2a27b8144ac02f67687f76782a3b5d8f-Paper.pdf. Jiahui Geng, Yova Kementchedjhieva, Preslav Nakov, and Iryna Gurevych. Multimodal large lan- guage models to support real-world fact-checking,

    work page 2016

  2. [6]

    Ragar, your falsehood radar: Rag-augmented reasoning for political fact-checking using multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12065,

    M Abdul Khaliq, Paul Chang, Mingyang Ma, Bernhard Pflugfelder, and Filip Mileti ´c. Ragar, your falsehood radar: Rag-augmented reasoning for political fact-checking using multimodal large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12065,

    arXiv

  3. [7]

    Fka-owl: Advancing multimodal fake news detection through knowledge-augmented lvlms

    Xuannan Liu, Peipei Li, Huaibo Huang, Zekun Li, Xing Cui, Jiahao Liang, Lixiong Qin, Wei- hong Deng, and Zhaofeng He. Fka-owl: Advancing multimodal fake news detection through knowledge-augmented lvlms. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Mul- timedia, pp. 10154–10163, 2024a. Xuannan Liu, Zekun Li, Peipei Li, Shuhan Xia, Xing Cui, Li...

    arXiv

  4. [9]

    VERITE: A Robust Benchmark for Multimodal Misinformation Detection Accounting for Unimodal Bias

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14133. Peng Qi, Zehong Yan, Wynne Hsu, and Mong Li Lee. Sniffer: Multimodal large language model for explainable out-of-context misinformation detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 13052–13062,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [10]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02556. Snopes. URLhttps://www.snopes.com/. Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [11]

    FEVER: a large- scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification

    James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. FEVER: a large- scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In Marilyn Walker, Heng Ji, and Amanda Stent (eds.),Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long ...

    work page 2018

  7. [16]

    Search, Examine and Early-Termination: Fake News Detection with Annotation-Free Evidences

    12 Preprint. Under review. Yuzhou Yang, Yangming Zhou, Qichao Ying, Zhenxing Qian, and Xinpeng Zhang. Search, exam- ine and early-termination: Fake news detection with annotation-free evidences.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07931,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [17]

    The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with gpt-4v (ision).arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17421, 9(1):1,

    Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Kevin Lin, Jianfeng Wang, Chung-Ching Lin, Zicheng Liu, and Li- juan Wang. The dawn of lmms: Preliminary explorations with gpt-4v (ision).arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17421, 9(1):1,

    arXiv

Show all 22 references
  1. [18]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591879

    doi: 10.1145/3539618.3591879. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591879. Xin Yuan, Jie Guo, Weidong Qiu, Zheng Huang, and Shujun Li. Support or refute: Analyz- ing the stance of evidence to detect out-of-context mis-and disinformation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01766,

  2. [19]

    Multimodal misinformation detection by learning from synthetic data with multimodal llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19656,

    Fengzhu Zeng, Wenqian Li, Wei Gao, and Yan Pang. Multimodal misinformation detection by learning from synthetic data with multimodal llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19656,

    arXiv

  3. [20]

    Yizhou Zhang, Loc Trinh, Defu Cao, Zijun Cui, and Yan Liu

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15343. Yizhou Zhang, Loc Trinh, Defu Cao, Zijun Cui, and Yan Liu. Detecting out-of-context multimodal misinformation with interpretable neural-symbolic model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07633,

    arXiv

  4. [21]

    Fact-checking meets fauxtography: Verifying claims about images.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.11722,

    Dimitrina Zlatkova, Preslav Nakov, and Ivan Koychev. Fact-checking meets fauxtography: Verifying claims about images.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.11722,

    1908 arXiv

  5. [22]

    initially entered a not-guilty plea

    The extracted evidence is more concise, making it easier for the model to perform reasoning. B MOREANALYSIS OFREASONING Details of reasoning methods: •Chain of Thought: Model outputs an additional rationale in addition to the binary label. •Prompt Ensembles: Inspired by Geng e...

    2024

  6. [2014]

    Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191,

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, et al. Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model’s perception of the world at any resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191,

    arXiv

  7. [2016]

    Dpod: Domain-specific prompt tuning for multimodal fake news detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16496, 2023a

    Debarshi Brahma, Amartya Bhattacharya, Suraj Nagaje Mahadev, Anmol Asati, Vikas Verma, and Soma Biswas. Dpod: Domain-specific prompt tuning for multimodal fake news detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16496, 2023a. Debarshi Brahma, Amartya Bhattacharya, Suraj Nagaje Mahadev, A...

    arXiv

  8. [2017]

    doi: 10.18653/v1/P17-2067

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P17-2067. URL https://aclanthology.org/P17-2067/. Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdh- ery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in...

    arXiv

  9. [2018]

    doi: 10.18653/v1/N18-1074

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N18-1074. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/N18-1074/. Andreas Vlachos and Sebastian Riedel. Fact checking: Task definition and dataset construction. InProceedings of the ACL 2014 workshop on language technologies and compu...

    doi

  10. [2019]

    Mm-soc: Benchmarking multimodal large language models in social media platforms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14154,

    Yiqiao Jin, Minje Choi, Gaurav Verma, Jindong Wang, and Srijan Kumar. Mm-soc: Benchmarking multimodal large language models in social media platforms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14154,

    arXiv

  11. [2021]

    Shivangi Aneja, Chris Bregler, and Matthias Nießner

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2101.06278. Shivangi Aneja, Chris Bregler, and Matthias Nießner. Cosmos: catching out-of-context image mis- use using self-supervised learning. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelli- gence, volume 37, pp. 14084–14092,

    arXiv

  12. [2022]

    URLhttps://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/about/introduction

    X Community Notes. URLhttps://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/about/introduction. X/Twitter. URLhttps://x.com/. Keyang Xuan, Li Yi, Fan Yang, Ruochen Wu, Yi R Fung, and Heng Ji. Lemma: Towards lvlm- enhanced multimodal misinformation detection with external knowledge augmentatio...

    arXiv

  13. [2023]

    r/fakeddit: A new multimodal benchmark dataset for fine-grained fake news detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03854,

    Kai Nakamura, Sharon Levy, and William Yang Wang. r/fakeddit: A new multimodal benchmark dataset for fine-grained fake news detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03854,

    1911 arXiv

  14. [2024]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2403. 03627. Andreas Hanselowski, Christian Stab, Claudia Schulz, Zile Li, and Iryna Gurevych. A richly an- notated corpus for different tasks in automated fact-checking.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01214,

    1911 arXiv

Pith tools

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