2004 05773 Generating Fact Checking Explanations Arxiv Org

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Most existing work on automated fact checking is concerned with predicting the veracity of claims based on metadata, social network spread, language used in claims, and, more recently, evidence supporting or denying claims.

A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process – generating justifications for verdicts on claims. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context, and how this task can be modeled jointly with veracity prediction. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system. The results of a manual evaluation further suggest that the informativeness, coverage and overall quality of the generated explanations are also improved in the multi-task model. When a potentially viral news item is rapidly or indiscriminately published by a news outlet, the responsibility of verifying the truthfulness of the item is often passed on to the audience. To alleviate this problem, independent teams of professional fact checkers manually verify the veracity and credibility of common or particularly check-worthy statements circulating the web.

However, these teams have limited resources to perform manual fact checks, thus creating a need for automating the fact checking process. The current research landscape in automated fact checking is comprised of systems that estimate the veracity of claims based on available metadata and evidence pages. Datasets like LIAR Wang (2017) and the multi-domain dataset MultiFC Augenstein et al. (2019) provide real-world benchmarks for evaluation. There are also artificial datasets of a larger scale, e.g., the FEVER Thorne et al. (2018) dataset based on Wikipedia articles.

As evident from the effectiveness of state-of-the-art methods for both real-world – 0.492 macro F1 score Augenstein et al. (2019), and artificial data – 68.46 FEVER score (label accuracy conditioned on evidence provided for ‘supported’ and ‘refuted’ claims) Stammbach and Neumann (2019), the task of automating fact checking remains a significant and poignant... A prevalent component of existing fact checking systems is a stance detection or textual entailment model that predicts whether a piece of evidence contradicts or supports a claim Ma et al. (2018); Mohtarami et al. (2018); Xu et al. (2018).

Existing research, however, rarely attempts to directly optimise the selection of relevant evidence, i.e., the self-sufficient explanation for predicting the veracity label Thorne et al. (2018); Stammbach and Neumann (2019). On the other hand, Alhindi et al. (2018) have reported a significant performance improvement of over 10% macro F1 score when the system is provided with a short human explanation of the veracity label. Still, there are no attempts at automatically producing explanations, and automating the most elaborate part of the process - producing the justification for the veracity prediction - is an understudied problem. In the field of NLP as a whole, both explainability and interpretability methods have gained importance recently, because most state-of-the-art models are large, neural black-box models.

Interpretability, on one hand, provides an overview of the inner workings of a trained model such that a user could, in principle, follow the same reasoning to come up with predictions for new instances. However, with the increasing number of neural units in published state-of-the-art models, it becomes infeasible for users to track all decisions being made by the models. Explainability, on the other hand, deals with providing local explanations about single data points that suggest the most salient areas from the input or are generated textual explanations for a particular prediction. Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma, Isabelle Augenstein [Generating Fact Checking Explanations](https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.656/) (Atanasova et al., ACL 2020) ACL materials are Copyright © 1963–2025 ACL; other materials are copyrighted by their respective copyright holders.

Materials prior to 2016 here are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License. Permission is granted to make copies for the purposes of teaching and research. Materials published in or after 2016 are licensed on a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The ACL Anthology is managed and built by the ACL Anthology team of volunteers. Site last built on 27 November 2025 at 10:42 UTC with commit 542848d. There was an error while loading.

Please reload this page. Most existing work on automated fact checking is concerned with predicting the veracity of claims based on metadata, social network spread, language used in claims, and, more recently, evidence supporting or denying claims. A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process -- generating justifications for verdicts on claims. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context, and how this task can be modelled jointly with veracity prediction. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system. The results of a manual evaluation further suggest that the informativeness, coverage and overall quality of the generated explanations are also improved in the multi-task model.

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Most existing work on automated fact checking is concerned with predicting the veracity of claims based on metadata, social network spread, language used in claims, and, more recently, evidence supporting or denying claims.

A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process—generating justifications for verdicts on claims. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context, and how this task can be modelled jointly with veracity prediction. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system. The results of a manual evaluation further suggest that the informativeness, coverage and overall quality of the generated explanations are also improved in the multi-task model (The content in this chapter has been reprinted,... (2020)). This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout Adebayo J, Gilmer J, Muelly M, Goodfellow I, Hardt M, Kim B (2018) Sanity checks for saliency maps. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’18). Curran Associates Inc, USA, pp 9525–9536. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3327546.3327621 Alhindi T, Petridis S, Muresan S (2018) Where is your evidence: improving fact-checking by justification modeling.

In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER). Association for Computational Linguistics, Brussels, pp 85–90. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5513. https://aclanthology.org/W18-5513 Most existing work on automated fact checking is concerned with predicting the veracity of claims based on metadata, social network spread, language used in claims, and, more recently, evidence supporting or denying claims. A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process -- generating justifications for verdicts on claims.

This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context, and how this task can be modelled jointly with veracity prediction. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system. The results of a manual evaluation further suggest that the informativeness, coverage and overall quality of the generated explanations are also improved in the multi-task model. 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 s... Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) is the automated verification of claim accuracy. AFC is crucial in discerning truth from misinformation, especially given the huge amounts of content are generated online daily. Current research focuses on predicting claim veracity through metadata analysis and language scrutiny, with an emphasis on justifying verdicts. This paper surveys recent methodologies, proposing a comprehensive taxonomy and presenting the evolution of research in that lan... The past decade has seen a substantial rise in the amount of mis- and disinformation online, from targeted disinformation campaigns to influence politics, to the unintentional spreading of misinformation about public health.

This development has spurred research in the area of automatic fact checking, from approaches to detect check-worthy claims and determining the stance of tweets towards claims, to methods to determine the veracity of claims... These... Fighting misinformation is a challenging, yet crucial, task. Despite the growing number of experts being involved in manual fact-checking, this activity is time-consuming and cannot keep up with the ever-increasing amount of Fake News produced daily. Hence, automating this process is necessary to help curb misinformation. Thus far, researchers have mainly focused on claim veracity classification.

In this paper, instead, we address the generation of justifications (textual exp... Organize your preprints, BibTeX, and PDFs with Paperpile. Enhance arXiv with our new Chrome Extension. Abstract: Most existing work on automated fact checking is concerned with predicting the veracity of claims based on metadata, social network spread, language used in claims, and, more recently, evidence supporting or denying claims. A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process -- generating justifications for verdicts on claims. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context, and how this task can be modelled jointly with veracity prediction.

Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system. The results of a manual evaluation further suggest that the informativeness, coverage and overall quality of the generated explanations are also improved in the multi-task model. Organize your preprints, BibTeX, and PDFs with Paperpile. The paper "Generating Fact Checking Explanations" by Atanasova et al. investigates the computational challenges associated with providing justifications for fact-checking verdicts. This research extends the current landscape of automated veracity prediction by addressing the crucial step of generating coherent and explanatory justifications, a task that remains largely unautomatized.

People Also Search

• [2004.05773] Generating Fact Checking Explanations - arXiv.org
• PDF Generating Fact Checking Explanations - arXiv.org
• [2004.05773] Generating Fact Checking Explanations - ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org
• Generating Fact Checking Explanations - ACL Anthology
• Generating Fact Checking Explanations · Issue #7667 · ikr7/arxiv-survey
• [2511.20233] REFLEX: Self-Refining Explainable Fact-Checking via ...
• Generating Fact Checking Explanations | SpringerLink
• Generating Fact Checking Explanations
• Generating Fact Checking Explanations (2004.05773v1)
• Generating Fact Checking Explanations - NASA/ADS