Explainable Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:K5NG743Erecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
A number of exciting advances have been made in automated fact-checking thanks to increasingly larger datasets and more powerful systems, leading to improvements in the complexity of claims which can be accurately fact-checked. However, despite these advances, there are still desirable functionalities missing from the fact-checking pipeline. In this survey, we focus on the explanation functionality -- that is fact-checking systems providing reasons for their predictions. We summarize existing methods for explaining the predictions of fact-checking systems and we explore trends in this topic. Further, we consider what makes for good explanations in this specific domain through a comparative analysis of existing fact-checking explanations against some desirable properties. Finally, we propose further research directions for generating fact-checking explanations, and describe how these may lead to improvements in the research area.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
TSVer: A Benchmark for Fact Verification Against Time-Series Evidence
TSVer is a new benchmark dataset for fact verification against time-series evidence, with 304 annotated real-world claims, 400 time series, verdicts, and justifications, plus baseline results showing current models struggle.
-
Mechanistic Interpretability Needs Philosophy
The paper claims that mechanistic interpretability needs philosophy as a partner to clarify concepts, refine methods, and navigate epistemic and ethical complexities in AI systems.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.