REVIEW 2 cited by
Generating Media Background Checks for Automated Source Critical Reasoning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Not everything on the internet is true. This unfortunate fact requires both humans and models to perform complex reasoning about credibility when working with retrieved information. In NLP, this problem has seen little attention. Indeed, retrieval-augmented models are not typically expected to distrust retrieved documents. Human experts overcome the challenge by gathering signals about the context, reliability, and tendency of source documents - that is, they perform source criticism. We propose a novel NLP task focused on finding and summarising such signals. We introduce a new dataset of 6,709 "media background checks" derived from Media Bias / Fact Check, a volunteer-run website documenting media bias. We test open-source and closed-source LLM baselines with and without retrieval on this dataset, finding that retrieval greatly improves performance. We furthermore carry out human evaluation, demonstrating that 1) media background checks are helpful for humans, and 2) media background checks are helpful for retrieval-augmented models.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Resolving Conflicting Evidence in Automated Fact-Checking: A Study on Retrieval-Augmented LLMs
A new dataset of claims with conflicting web evidence shows retrieval-augmented LLMs are fragile, and source-credibility cues help only modestly.
-
MGM: Global Understanding of Audience Overlap Graphs for Predicting the Factuality and the Bias of News Media
MGM augments graph neural networks with globally similar media nodes and language model probabilities, improving factuality and bias classification of news outlets.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.