The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2011.03870 · v1 · pith:K5NG743E · submitted 2020-11-07 · cs.CL · cs.AI

Explainable Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:K5NG743Erecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords fact-checkingexplanationssystemsadvancesautomateddesirableexistingfurther
0
0 comments X
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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. TSVer: A Benchmark for Fact Verification Against Time-Series Evidence

    cs.CL 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    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.

  2. Mechanistic Interpretability Needs Philosophy

    cs.CL 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    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.