Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Overview of the CLEF-2018 CheckThat! Lab on Automatic Identification and Verification of Political Claims. Task 1: Check-Worthiness

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1808.05542 v1 pith:7OK7D7RA submitted 2018-08-08 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords taskclaimspoliticalcheck-worthinessarabicautomaticcampaigncheckthat
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We present an overview of the CLEF-2018 CheckThat! Lab on Automatic Identification and Verification of Political Claims, with focus on Task 1: Check-Worthiness. The task asks to predict which claims in a political debate should be prioritized for fact-checking. In particular, given a debate or a political speech, the goal was to produce a ranked list of its sentences based on their worthiness for fact checking. We offered the task in both English and Arabic, based on debates from the 2016 US Presidential Campaign, as well as on some speeches during and after the campaign. A total of 30 teams registered to participate in the Lab and seven teams actually submitted systems for Task~1. The most successful approaches used by the participants relied on recurrent and multi-layer neural networks, as well as on combinations of distributional representations, on matchings claims' vocabulary against lexicons, and on measures of syntactic dependency. The best systems achieved mean average precision of 0.18 and 0.15 on the English and on the Arabic test datasets, respectively. This leaves large room for further improvement, and thus we release all datasets and the scoring scripts, which should enable further research in check-worthiness estimation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Machine Understanding of Scientific Language

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The thesis defines and evaluates tasks and datasets for automatic fact checking, cite-worthiness, exaggeration detection, and information change measurement in science communication, culminating in SPICED, a cross-med...

  2. CEA-LIST at CheckThat! 2025: Evaluating LLMs as Detectors of Bias and Opinion in Text

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Few-shot prompted LLMs rivaled fine-tuned smaller models in multilingual subjectivity detection, winning the Arabic and Polish tracks of CheckThat! 2025.

Pith tools