Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 100 references

Adversarial Attacks Against Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey claims to be the first systematic review of adversarial attacks on automated fact-checking, organizing 53 attacks into a three-family taxonomy and quantifying that current defenses cover only 13 of them.

desk verdict Useful taxonomy and broadest attack survey to date, but the 'full pipeline' claim and the headline defense-gap count need reconciliation before I'd trust the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08463 v1 pith:YDSABQKB submitted 2025-09-10 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CR

Fanzhen Liu , Alsharif Abuadbba , Kristen Moore , Surya Nepal , Cecile Paris , Jia Wu , Jian Yang , Quan Z. Sheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CR
keywords automatedfact-checkingadversarialattackstaxonomyclaimmanipulationevidencepoisoningclaim-evidencepairsdefensecoveragesurvey
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 sets out to give the first in-depth, holistic review of adversarial attacks aimed at automated fact-checking (AFC) systems, an area it argues prior surveys have only touched piecemeal. Its central contribution is a two-axis taxonomy that maps every surveyed attack by which pipeline component it targets (verdict prediction or evidence retrieval) and by the granularity of its edits (from single characters to whole corpora), grouped into three families: claim attacks, evidence attacks, and claim-evidence pair attacks. Across 53 cataloged attacks, the paper finds that published defenses address only 13, which would leave most known attack strategies without a tested mitigation. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's value to be the organizing map itself: a shared coordinate system for comparing attacks, assessing model resilience, and directing future defenses.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a two-dimensional taxonomy: the attack target (whether the perturbation attacks verdict prediction or evidence retrieval) crossed with edit granularity (character-level, word-level, sentence-level, article-level, corpus-level, or dataset-level), with attacks first split into three families according to which AFC component they touch — claims, evidence, or claim-evidence pairs. The taxonomy is the paper's main instrument: it converts dozens of ad hoc attack techniques into a single grid, making it possible to count coverage (13 of 53 attacks have published defenses), compare settings, and identify empty cells that future attacks or defenses might occupy.

What would settle it

Run a systematic search with a broader query set (for example 'fact verification attack', 'claim verification robustness', 'entailment attack', and non-English fact-checking venues), and count how many additional attack techniques do not fit the three-way claim/evidence/claim-evidence split; a substantial number of non-fitting attacks would refute the paper's full-spectrum claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that adversarial attacks on automated fact-checking have been studied in isolation and that no prior survey has covered the full spectrum across the AFC pipeline. It asserts that a unified taxonomy spanning attack target and edit granularity is needed and delivers one, classifying 53 attacks into adversarial claim attacks (38), adversarial evidence attacks (13), and adversarial claim-evidence pair attacks (2). The empirical synthesis shows that current defenses are matched to only 13 of these 53 attacks, and that most claim attacks operate in black-box settings while attacks such as SubsetNum, Fact Mixing, and Multi-hop Temp. can drive FEVER scores to zero or near zero on affected systems. The paper also documents a growing shift toward LLM-assisted generation (GPT-2, GPT-4, T5, BART, PEGASUS) and identifies open gaps: a universal evaluation benchmark, multimodal and real-time attacks, white-box verification attacks, and robustness testing of LLM-based fact-checkers.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of covering the full spectrum of attacks rests on the assumption that the curated sample of 50-plus papers, selected from a stated list of venues and keywords while explicitly excluding NLI, fake-news, and textual-entailment attacks, is representative of all AFC attack research.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The field gains a common vocabulary: any attack or defense can be located by family, target stage, and edit granularity, which should make robustness claims comparable across studies.
  • The numeric gap between known attacks (53) and addressed attacks (13) becomes a concrete agenda item: roughly seven of every eight attacks still lack a published, dedicated defense.
  • The predominance of black-box claim attacks and the scarcity of white-box verification attacks marks white-box settings as an under-explored but increasingly realistic threat as open-weight LLM checkers become common.
  • The vulnerability of systems to surface edits and heuristic shortcuts (documented for SubsetNum, Fact Mixing, and the Colloquial attack) implies that high benchmark accuracy may overstate reasoning ability; retrieval quality alone is not sufficient for veracity.
  • The emerging attacks on agentic AFC systems (Fact2Fiction) indicate that the threat model is widening from static pipelines to interactive, decompose-and-verify systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A broader literature sweep that includes NLP robustness work on textual entailment, NLI, and fake-news detection would likely uncover attacks that do not fit the three-way claim/evidence/pair split, making the 'full spectrum' label a boundary of the search scope rather than a property of the attack space itself.
  • The 13-of-53 coverage ratio should not be read as a direct measure of real-world risk: an attack with no named defense may still fail in practice, and a defended attack may return at higher severity; the number measures published attention, not vulnerability.
  • A concrete extension the paper does not pursue: instantiate each cell of the taxonomy with one representative attack and one representative defense, creating a benchmark covering the whole grid so that robustness gains in one family can be measured against regressions in another.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This survey reviews adversarial attacks against automated fact-checking (AFC) systems, organizing the literature into three attack families (claim, evidence, and claim-evidence pair attacks), proposing a two-axis taxonomy (attack target by edit granularity), summarizing existing defenses, and quantifying a defense gap: current defenses address only 13 of the 53 surveyed attacks. The paper claims to be the first in-depth, comprehensive review spanning the full AFC pipeline, and it provides structured appendix tables that report attack settings, target datasets, and effectiveness numbers, plus a public resources page.

Significance. If the taxonomy is coherent and the counts are reproducible, this would be a useful organizing reference for a growing but scattered research area, and the 13-of-53 defense-gap figure would be an actionable call for new defenses. The manuscript has notable strengths: the appendix tables (Tables 2–7) are detailed and, on spot-checking, the main-text numbers match the tables (e.g., the Colloquial attack's document recall drop from 90.0 to 72.2 and the Chinese DeBERTa accuracy drop from 86.69 to 57.84); the taxonomy diagram and the attack descriptions cover most of the prominent existing work; and the limitations statement is candid about excluding textual entailment, NLI, and fake-news detection. However, the central claims of "full-spectrum" coverage and a consistent enumeration are undermined by the issues below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (Taxonomy) vs. Section 2 (Pipeline)] The attack-target axis is defined as 'the specific component of the AFC pipeline being compromised (i.e., verdict prediction or evidence retrieval)', but Section 2 defines a four-stage AFC pipeline that also includes claim detection and justification production. Figure 2 only uses 'corrupted verdict' and 'disrupted retrieval' cells. The paper nowhere states that no attacks target claim detection or justification production, and Fact2Fiction (Section 5.2.1) is described as exploiting system-generated justifications and compromising sub-claim verification—yet it is labeled only as a verdict-corruption attack. The claim of a 'full spectrum across the AFC pipeline' is therefore not supported by the taxonomy as defined. Please either explicitly scope the taxonomy to verdict prediction and evidence retrieval with a justification, or extend the attack-target axis to cover all four pipeline stages and classify attacks accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.2, Section 6.2, Table 4, Section 7] The count of adversarial evidence attacks is internally inconsistent. Section 5.2 says 'The 13 identified attacks in Fig. 2', Section 6.2 repeats '13', but Table 4 lists 14 rows, including 'Omitting Generate', which is never described in the body text of Section 5.2. The Section 7 claim that 'current defenses address only 13 of the 53 attacks' depends on 38 claim + 13 evidence + 2 pair attacks; with Table 4 showing 14 evidence attacks the total becomes 54, and the defense-coverage fraction changes. Please reconcile the text, figure, and table counts, and state explicitly which items count as distinct attacks (e.g., is 'Omitting Generate' a separate attack or a variant of 'Omitting Paraphrase'?).
  3. [Appendix A.2 (Literature Compilation)] The selection strategy is reported only as reviewing 'the abstract, introduction, conclusion, and limitations of each paper' and selecting '50+ relevant papers'. There is no full-text screening flow, no inclusion/exclusion counts, and no coding rule for assigning each paper to a taxonomy cell. Because the abstract claims to be the first comprehensive review of the full spectrum of adversarial attacks, the absence of a documented and reproducible search protocol makes the completeness claim difficult to verify. Please provide a PRISMA-style flow diagram or a transparent enumeration of searched venues, keyword combinations, screened papers, and exclusion reasons, or soften the claim to describe the survey as representative rather than exhaustive.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.1.2] The model name 'Liama3' should be 'Llama 3' (matching the Llama 3 herd of models reference).
  2. [Section 5.2.2] 'Word-level manipulations are preformed' should be 'are performed', and 'envidence' should be 'evidence' in the same subsection.
  3. [Section 7] 'critial' should be 'critical'; also 'SubNum' should be 'SubsetNum' for consistency with Section 5.1.
  4. [Table 1] 'CorssAug' should be 'CrossAug', and the cell 'Factual-NLI+Quin+' needs formatting clarification (presumably 'Factual-NLI+' with the Quin+ defense).
  5. [Appendix C.1] The phrase 'The A VeriTeC dataset' contains an extra article; the dataset is referred to as 'AVeriTeC' or 'VeriTeC' in the associated literature.
  6. [Figure 2] The number of leaf nodes under the evidence-attack branch appears to be fewer than the 13 stated in the text; please verify that the figure, Section 5.2, and Table 4 are mutually consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey's taxonomy, attack counts, and defense coverage are summary classifications of external work, not quantities derived from the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

This is a literature survey with no fitted parameters, equations, or predictions that could be forced by construction. The central products—the three attack families (claim, evidence, claim-evidence pair), the two-axis taxonomy (attack target × edit granularity), and the 13-of-53 defense-coverage count—are summary classifications of externally published results, not quantities derived from the paper's own definitions. The only author-overlapping citation is Zhang et al. (2020b), used in Sec. 1 to justify excluding NLI ('we exclude adjacent tasks such as textual entailment (Jin et al., 2020), natural language inference (Zhang et al., 2020b), and general text classification (Przybyła et al., 2024), which lack the full AFC pipeline'); this exclusion is a scope boundary, not a load-bearing derived result, so it does not raise the circularity score. Reviewer concerns that the taxonomy omits claim detection and justification production as attack-target cells, and that evidence-attack counts disagree (12 in Sec. 5.2, 13 in Sec. 6.2, 14 rows in Table 4), are internal-consistency and completeness questions rather than circularity: no step reduces to its own input. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no invented entities: the survey derives no fitted quantities and postulates no new theoretical objects. The three load-bearing assumptions are the completeness of the three-way attack split, the choice of taxonomy axes, and the representativeness of the curated corpus. All are disclosed in Secs. 3 to 4 and Appendix A, but none is independently verified; a reader who doubts the corpus coverage cannot fall back on any derived check within the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The three-way split of adversarial attacks (claim, evidence, claim-evidence pair) covers the full space of attacks against AFC systems.
    Central organizing premise of Sec. 3 and Fig. 1. Attacks on other pipeline stages (claim detection, justification production) receive no comparable treatment, and the Limitations section explicitly excludes textual entailment, NLI, and fake news detection.
  • domain assumption Attack target and edit granularity are the most informative dimensions for comparing attacks.
    Sec. 4 states that model access, automation strategy, and semantic preservation are complementary but reported too inconsistently to serve as primary axes. If a better dimension exists, the comparisons in Tables 3 to 5 would be re-ordered.
  • domain assumption The hand-curated corpus of 50+ papers selected via Appendix A is representative of the literature.
    Appendix A.2 describes selection by reading abstracts, introductions, conclusions, and limitations of candidate papers, without a formal screening flow or inter-rater agreement. The comprehensiveness claim of the survey depends on this corpus.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adversarial Attacks Against Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDSABQKB

@misc{pith2026250908463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adversarial Attacks Against Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDSABQKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08463}
}
read the original abstract

In an era where misinformation spreads freely, fact-checking (FC) plays a crucial role in verifying claims and promoting reliable information. While automated fact-checking (AFC) has advanced significantly, existing systems remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks that manipulate or generate claims, evidence, or claim-evidence pairs. These attacks can distort the truth, mislead decision-makers, and ultimately undermine the reliability of FC models. Despite growing research interest in adversarial attacks against AFC systems, a comprehensive, holistic overview of key challenges remains lacking. These challenges include understanding attack strategies, assessing the resilience of current models, and identifying ways to enhance robustness. This survey provides the first in-depth review of adversarial attacks targeting FC, categorizing existing attack methodologies and evaluating their impact on AFC systems. Additionally, we examine recent advancements in adversary-aware defenses and highlight open research questions that require further exploration. Our findings underscore the urgent need for resilient FC frameworks capable of withstanding adversarial manipulations in pursuit of preserving high verification accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of adversarial attacks against AFC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A technical taxonomy of adversarial attacks against AFC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of adversarial claim attacks: evidence-guided and claim-guided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of adversarial evidence attacks: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of adversarial claim-evidence pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Sahar Abdelnabi and Mario Fritz. 2023. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity23/presentation/abdelnabi Fact-Saboteurs : A taxonomy of evidence manipulation attacks against Fact-Verification systems . In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 6719--6736

    2023

  4. [4]

    Mubashara Akhtar, Michael Schlichtkrull, Zhijiang Guo, Oana Cocarascu, Elena Simperl, and Andreas Vlachos. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.361 Multimodal automated fact-checking: A survey . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 5430--5448

    2023

  5. [5]

    Tariq Alhindi, Savvas Petridis, and Smaranda Muresan. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5513 Where is your evidence: Improving fact-checking by justification modeling . In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VER ification ( FEVER ) , pages 85--90

    doi:10.18653/v1/w18-5513 2018

  6. [6]

    Rami Aly and Andreas Vlachos. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.411 Natural logic-guided autoregressive multi-hop document retrieval for fact verification . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6123--6135

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.411 2022

  7. [7]

    Moustafa Alzantot, Yash Sharma, Ahmed Elgohary, Bo-Jhang Ho, Mani Srivastava, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1316 Generating natural language adversarial examples . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2890--2896

    doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1316 2018

  8. [8]

    Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00486 Fact checking with insufficient evidence . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:746--763

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00486 2022

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Pepa Atanasova, Dustin Wright, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.256 Generating label cohesive and well-formed adversarial claims . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Isabelle Augenstein, Timothy Baldwin, and Meeyoung Cha et al. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00881-z Factuality challenges in the era of large language models and opportunities for fact-checking . Nature Machine Intelligence, 6:852--863

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Isabelle Augenstein, Christina Lioma, Dongsheng Wang, Lucas Chaves Lima, Casper Hansen, Christian Hansen, and Jakob Grue Simonsen. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1475 M ulti FC : A real-world multi-domain dataset for evidence-based fact checking of claims . In Proceedin...

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Giannis Bekoulis, Christina Papagiannopoulou, and Nikos Deligiannis. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3485127 A review on fact extraction and verification . ACM Comput. Surv., 55(1)

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Nicholas Boucher, Ilia Shumailov, Ross Anderson, and Nicolas Papernot. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP46214.2022.9833641 Bad characters: Imperceptible nlp attacks . In 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 1987--2004

    2022

  6. [14]

    Tobias Braun, Mark Rothermel, Marcus Rohrbach, and Anna Rohrbach. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=umT6rMf1Rm DEFAME : Dynamic Evidence -based FA ct-checking with M ultimodal E xperts . In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning

    2025

  7. [15]

    Recep Firat Cekinel, Pinar Karagoz, and C a g r C \"o ltekin. 2025. https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.310/ Multimodal fact-checking with vision language models: A probing classifier based solution with embedding strategies . In Proceedings of the 31st International Con...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Danqi Chen, Adam Fisch, Jason Weston, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1171 Reading W ikipedia to answer open-domain questions . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1...

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associat...

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Yibing Du, Antoine Bosselut, and Christopher D. Manning. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i10.21302 Synthetic disinformation attacks on automated fact verification systems . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):10581--10589

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Julian Eisenschlos, Bhuwan Dhingra, Jannis Bulian, Benjamin B \"o rschinger, and Jordan Boyd-Graber. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.32 Fool me twice: Entailment from W ikipedia gamification . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapte...

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Islam Eldifrawi, Shengrui Wang, and Amine Trabelsi. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.361 Automated justification production for claim veracity in fact checking: A survey on architectures and approaches . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Associati...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Liu, Matthew Peters, Michael Schmitz, and Luke Zettlemoyer

    Matt Gardner, Joel Grus, Mark Neumann, Oyvind Tafjord, Pradeep Dasigi, Nelson F. Liu, Matthew Peters, Michael Schmitz, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-2501 A llen NLP : A deep semantic natural language processing platform . In Proceedings of Worksho...

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Abbas Ghaddar, Phillippe Langlais, Mehdi Rezagholizadeh, and Ahmad Rashid. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.168 End-to-end self-debiasing framework for robust NLU training . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages...

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, and Abhinav Pandey et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The Llama 3 herd of models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Ashim Gupta and Vivek Srikumar. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-short.86 X -fact: A new benchmark dataset for multilingual fact checking . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Con...

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    Andreas Hanselowski, Hao Zhang, Zile Li, Daniil Sorokin, Benjamin Schiller, Claudia Schulz, and Iryna Gurevych. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5516 UKP -athene: Multi-sentence textual entailment for claim verification . In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extra...

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    Haorui He, Yupeng Li, Bin Benjamin Zhu, Dacheng Wen, Reynold Cheng, and Francis C. M. Lau. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06059 Fact2Fiction : Targeted poisoning attack to agentic fact-checking system . Preprint, arXiv:2508.06059

    2025

  19. [28]

    Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=sE7-XhLxHA DeBERTaV3 : Improving deberta using electra-style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  20. [29]

    Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=XPZIaotutsD DeBERTa : Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  21. [30]

    Christopher Hidey, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Tariq Alhindi, Siddharth Varia, Kriste Krstovski, Mona Diab, and Smaranda Muresan. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.761 D e S e P tion: Dual sequence prediction and adversarial examples for improved fact-checking . In Procee...

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    Christopher Hidey and Mona Diab. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5525 Team SWEEP er: Joint sentence extraction and fact checking with pointer networks . In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VER ification ( FEVER ) , pages 150--155

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1162/089976602760128018 Training products of experts by minimizing contrastive divergence . Neural Computation, 14(8):1771--1800

    2002 doi

  24. [33]

    Qisheng Hu, Quanyu Long, and Wenya Wang. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.320 Decomposition dilemmas: Does claim decomposition boost or burden fact-checking performance? In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Associ...

    2025 doi

  25. [34]

    Xuming Hu, Zhijiang Guo, GuanYu Wu, Aiwei Liu, Lijie Wen, and Philip Yu. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.246 CHEF : A pilot C hinese dataset for evidence-based fact-checking . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associat...

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas ...

    2023 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Yichen Jiang, Shikha Bordia, Zheng Zhong, Charles Dognin, Maneesh Singh, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.309 H o V er: A dataset for many-hop fact extraction and claim verification . In Findings of the Association for Computational Lingu...

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6311 Is BERT really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence...

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    Rabeeh Karimi Mahabadi, Yonatan Belinkov, and James Henderson. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.769 End-to-end bias mitigation by modelling biases in corpora . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8706--8716

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empiric...

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    Byeongchang Kim, Hyunwoo Kim, Seokhee Hong, and Gunhee Kim. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.121 How robust are fact checking systems on colloquial claims? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational...

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    Youngwoo Kim and James Allan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-6615 FEVER breaker ' s run of team N b A uz D r L qg . In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER), pages 99--104

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    Neema Kotonya and Francesca Toni. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.474 Explainable automated fact-checking: A survey . In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 5430--5443

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    Canasai Kruengkrai, Junichi Yamagishi, and Xin Wang. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.217 A multi-level attention model for evidence-based fact checking . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2447--2460

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav...

    2019 doi

  36. [45]

    Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1eA7AEtvS ALBERT : A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  37. [46]

    Minwoo Lee, Seungpil Won, Juae Kim, Hwanhee Lee, Cheoneum Park, and Kyomin Jung. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459637.3482078 CrossAug : A contrastive data augmentation method for debiasing fact verification models . In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on ...

    2021

  38. [47]

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 BART : Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translatio...

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.500 BERT - ATTACK : Adversarial attack against BERT using BERT . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNL...

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692 RoBERTa : A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach . Preprint, arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Maosong Sun, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.655 Fine-grained fact verification with kernel graph attention network . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages...

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    Christopher Malon. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5517 Team papelo: Transformer networks at FEVER . In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VER ification ( FEVER ) , pages 109--113

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    Mamta Mamta and Oana Cocarascu. 2025. https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.534/ F act E val: Evaluating the robustness of fact verification systems in the era of large language models . In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Ass...

    2025

  44. [53]

    Cameron Martel and David G. Rand. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00454 Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers . Nature Human Behaviour, 8:1957--1967

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, and Robert Dadashi et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08295 Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology . Preprint, arXiv:2403.08295

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09268v2 Ms marco: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset . Preprint, arXiv:1611.09268v2

    2016 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Yixin Nie, Haonan Chen, and Mohit Bansal. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33016859 Combining fact extraction and verification with neural semantic matching networks . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33(01):6859--6866

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    Piotr Niewinski, Maria Pszona, and Maria Janicka. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-6604 GEM : Generative enhanced model for adversarial attacks . In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER), pages 20--26

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    OpenAI. 2022. Chatgpt Blog Post . https://openai.com/index/chatgpt/

    2022

  50. [59]

    OpenAI. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 GPT-4 Technical Report . Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Wojciech Ostrowski, Arnav Arora, Pepa Atanasova, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2021. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/536 Multi-hop fact checking of political claims . In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3892--3898

    2021 doi

  52. [61]

    a ckstr \

    Ankur Parikh, Oscar T \"a ckstr \"o m, Dipanjan Das, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1244 A decomposable attention model for natural language inference . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages...

    2016 doi

  53. [62]

    Ronak Pradeep, Xueguang Ma, Rodrigo Nogueira, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. https://aclanthology.org/2021.louhi-1.11 Scientific claim verification with V er T 5erini . In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Health Text Mining and Information Analysis, pages 94--103

    2021

  54. [63]

    Piotr Przyby a, Ben Wu, Alexander Shvets, Yida Mu, Kim Cheng Sheang, Xingyi Song, and Horacio Saggion. 2024. Overview of the CLEF -2024 CheckThat ! lab task 6 on robustness of credibility assessment with adversarial examples (incrediblae). In Working Notes of CLEF 2024 - Confe...

    2024

  55. [64]

    Piotr Przybyła. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.20940 Attacking misinformation detection using adversarial examples generated by language models . Preprint, arXiv:2410.20940

    2024 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. https://cdn.openai.com/better-language-models/language_models_are_unsupervised_multitask_learners.pdf Language models are unsupervised multitask learners . OpenAI Blog, 1(8):9

    2019

  57. [66]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. http://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-074.html Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer . Journal of Machine Lea...

    2020

  58. [67]

    Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1079 Semantically equivalent adversarial rules for debugging NLP models . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pa...

    2018 doi

  59. [68]

    Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock - Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford

    Stephen E. Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline Hancock - Beaulieu, and Mike Gatford. 1994. http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec3/papers/city.ps.gz Okapi at TREC-3 . In Proceedings of The Third Text REtrieval Conference, TREC , volume 500-225 of NIST Special Publication ,...

    1994

  60. [69]

    Mark Rothermel, Tobias Braun, Marcus Rohrbach, and Anna Rohrbach. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.fever-1.12 I n F act: A strong baseline for automated fact-checking . In Proceedings of the Seventh Fact Extraction and VERification Workshop (FEVER), pages 108--112

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    Arkadiy Saakyan, Tuhin Chakrabarty, and Smaranda Muresan. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.165 COVID - F act: Fact extraction and verification of real-world claims on COVID -19 pandemic . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computati...

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    Sai, Tanay Dixit, Dev Yashpal Sheth, Sreyas Mohan, and Mitesh M

    Ananya B. Sai, Tanay Dixit, Dev Yashpal Sheth, Sreyas Mohan, and Mitesh M. Khapra. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.575 Perturbation C heck L ists for evaluating NLG evaluation metrics . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan...

    2021 doi

  63. [72]

    Shahnewaz Karim Sakib, Anindya Bijoy Das, and Shibbir Ahmed. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.trustnlp-main.28 Battling misinformation: An empirical study on adversarial factuality in open-source large language models . In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Trustworthy N...

    2025 doi

  64. [73]

    Chris Samarinas, Wynne Hsu, and Mong Li Lee. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI50040.2020.00147 Latent retrieval for large-scale fact-checking and question answering with nli training . In 2020 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), ...

    2020

  65. [74]

    Chris Samarinas, Wynne Hsu, and Mong Li Lee. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-demos.10 Improving evidence retrieval for automated explainable fact-checking . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Li...

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    Michael Schlichtkrull, Zhijiang Guo, and Andreas Vlachos. 2023. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/cd86a30526cd1aff61d6f89f107634e4-Paper-Datasets_and_Benchmarks.pdf AVeriTeC : A dataset for real-world claim verification with evidence from the web . In ...

    2023

  67. [76]

    Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, and Regina Barzilay. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.52 Get your vitamin C ! robust fact verification with contrastive evidence . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computationa...

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    Tal Schuster, Darsh Shah, Yun Jie Serene Yeo, Daniel Roberto Filizzola Ortiz, Enrico Santus, and Regina Barzilay. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1341 Towards debiasing fact verification models . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Langu...

    2019 doi

  69. [78]

    James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N18-1074 FEVER : a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VER ification . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associa...

    2018 doi

  70. [79]

    James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2019 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1292 Evaluating adversarial attacks against multiple fact verification systems . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Languag...

    2019 doi

  71. [80]

    James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Oana Cocarascu, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5501 The fact extraction and VER ification ( FEVER ) shared task . In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VER ification (...

    2018 doi

  72. [81]

    James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Oana Cocarascu, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2019 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-6601 The FEVER 2.0 shared task . In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER), pages 1--6

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    Bing Tian, Yixin Cao, Yong Zhang, and Chunxiao Xing. 2022. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/21389 Debiasing NLU models via causal intervention and counterfactual reasoning . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):11376--11384

    2022

  74. [83]

    Juraj Vladika and Florian Matthes. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.387 Scientific fact-checking: A survey of resources and approaches . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 6215--6230

    2023 doi

  75. [84]

    Ivan Vykopal, Matúš Pikuliak, Simon Ostermann, and Marián Šimko. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02351 Generative large language models in automated fact-checking: A survey . Preprint, arXiv:2407.02351

    2024 arXiv

  76. [85]

    David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.609 Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Na...

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    Lance Holbert, and Yasmin Morag

    Nathan Walter, Jonathan Cohen, R. Lance Holbert, and Yasmin Morag. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894 Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom . Political Communication, 37(3):350--375

    2020

  78. [87]

    Yu, and Kai Shu

    Haoran Wang, Yingtong Dou, Canyu Chen, Lichao Sun, Philip S. Yu, and Kai Shu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583868 Attacking fake news detectors via manipulating news social engagement . In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, page 3978–3986

    2023

  79. [88]

    Carley, and Huan Liu

    Liang Wu, Fred Morstatter, Kathleen M. Carley, and Huan Liu. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373464.3373475 Misinformation in social media: Definition, manipulation, and detection . SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 21(2):80–90

    2019

  80. [89]

    Weizhi Xu, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.374 Counterfactual debiasing for fact verification . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6777--6789

    2023 doi

  81. [90]

    Qianfeng Yang, Tess Christensen, Shlok Gilda, Juliana Fernandes, Daniela Oliveira, Ronald Wilson, and Damon Woodard. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13244 Are fact-checking tools helpful? an exploration of the usability of google fact check . Preprint, arXiv:2402.13244

    2024 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Deming Ye, Yankai Lin, Jiaju Du, Zhenghao Liu, Peng Li, Maosong Sun, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.582 C oreferential R easoning L earning for L anguage R epresentation . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural...

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    Takuma Yoneda, Jeff Mitchell, Johannes Welbl, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5515 UCL machine reading group: Four factor framework for fact finding ( H exa F ) . In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VER ific...

    2018 doi

  84. [93]

    Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. 2019. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2019/file/3e9f0fc9b2f89e043bc6233994dfcf76-Paper.pdf Defending against neural fake news . In Advances in Neural Inf...

    2019

  85. [94]

    Fengzhu Zeng and Wei Gao. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00649 JustiLM : Few-shot justification generation for explainable fact-checking of real-world claims . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:334--354

    2024 doi

  86. [95]

    Caiqi Zhang, Zhijiang Guo, and Andreas Vlachos. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.113 Do we need language-specific fact-checking models? the case of C hinese . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1...

    2024 doi

  87. [96]

    Congzhi Zhang, Linhai Zhang, and Deyu Zhou. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29925 Causal walk: Debiasing multi-hop fact verification with front-door adjustment . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(17):19533--19541

    2024 doi

  88. [97]

    Fanrui Zhang, Jiawei Liu, Jingyi Xie, Qiang Zhang, Yongchao Xu, and Zheng-Jun Zha. 2024 c . https://doi.org/10.1145/3589334.3645455 ESCNet : Entity-enhanced and stance checking network for multi-modal fact-checking . In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, page 2429–2440

    2024

  89. [98]

    Jiaxing Zhang, Ruyi Gan, Junjie Wang, Yuxiang Zhang, Lin Zhang, Ping Yang, Xinyu Gao, Ziwei Wu, Xiaoqun Dong, Junqing He, Jianheng Zhuo, Qi Yang, Yongfeng Huang, Xiayu Li, Yanghan Wu, Junyu Lu, Xinyu Zhu, Weifeng Chen, Ting Han, Kunhao Pan, Rui Wang, Hao Wang, Xiaojun Wu, Zhon...

    2023 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter Liu. 2020 a . https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/zhang20ae.html PEGASUS : Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization . In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, volu...

    2020

  91. [100]

    Sheng, Ahoud Alhazmi, and Chenliang Li

    Wei Emma Zhang, Quan Z. Sheng, Ahoud Alhazmi, and Chenliang Li. 2020 b . https://doi.org/10.1145/3374217 Adversarial attacks on deep-learning models in natural language processing: A survey . ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 11(3)

    2020 doi

  92. [101]

    Wei Zou, Runpeng Geng, Binghui Wang, and Jinyuan Jia. 2025. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity25/presentation/zou-poisonedrag PoisonedRAG : Knowledge corruption attacks to retrieval-augmented generation of large language models . In 34th USENIX Security Symposium...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.