Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

A Comprehensive Dataset for Human vs. AI Generated Text Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Paired NYT articles and six LLM rewrites yield detection baselines of 58.35% and 8.92%.

desk verdict Plausible dataset idea undercut by inconsistent numbers and a below-random baseline; needs a careful revision before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.22874 v3 pith:3KFQ6ZWY submitted 2025-10-26 cs.CL

Rajarshi Roy , Gurpreet Singh , Ashhar Aziz , Shashwat Bajpai , Nasrin Imanpour , Shwetangshu Biswas , Kapil Wanaskar , Parth Patwa
show 12 more authors
Subhankar Ghosh Shreyas Dixit Nilesh Ranjan Pal Vipula Rawte Ritvik Garimella Gaytri Jena Amitava Das Amit Sheth Vasu Sharma Aishwarya Naresh Reganti Vinija Jain Aman Chadha
This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords AI-generatedtextdetectionmodelattributionNewYorkTimesdatasetlargelanguagemodelsrewriting-basedsyntheticbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces a dataset built from New York Times articles, where each article's abstract is used as a prompt for six LLMs—Gemma-2-9b, Mistral-7B, Qwen-2-72B, LLaMA-8B, Yi-Large, and GPT-4-o—to produce synthetic news texts alongside the full human-authored story. The authors define two tasks: distinguishing human from AI text, and attributing AI text to the specific model that generated it. Their rewriting-based baseline achieves 58.35% accuracy on the first task and 8.92% on the second, which they offer as reference points showing the tasks are genuinely hard. The dataset is released to support development of better detectors.

What carries the argument

The baseline mechanism is a Raidar-style rewriting test: a fixed LLM (GPT-3.5-Turbo) rewrites each input, and Levenshtein edit distance measures how much it changed. The predictor picks the candidate model whose rewrite is closest as the generator, and labels text human if all distances exceed a threshold (the median maximum distance on training data). The assumption is that LLMs edit human text more than AI text, and their own text least.

What would settle it

Compute the longest common substring or high-order n-gram overlap between each generated text and its paired human article; if a meaningful share of AI outputs share long verbatim spans with the human story, the labels are contaminated. Also, train a classifier using only document length on Task A: if it reaches accuracy close to 58.35%, the baseline may be measuring length rather than authorship.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that pairing real New York Times articles with synthetic outputs from six different LLMs produces a dataset that supports two benchmark tasks: human-vs-AI detection and model attribution. Its baseline, a rewriting-based edit-distance classifier, reaches 58.35% accuracy on detection and 8.92% on attribution. The authors present these numbers as reference points that demonstrate the difficulty of both tasks and motivate better methods.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LLM outputs are genuine, uncontaminated AI generations prompted by the article abstracts rather than reproductions of memorized NYT text, and the paper describes no check to rule out such leakage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Detectors trained on this dataset are trained on full-length journalistic articles rather than short claims or social posts, which is closer to real-world news verification.
  • The dataset enables cross-model generalization studies: a detector trained on one LLM's outputs can be tested on the other five, which is relevant as new generators appear.
  • The 58.35% detection baseline indicates that simple edit-distance signals barely beat chance, implying the task needs features beyond surface rewriting.
  • The 8.92% attribution baseline, below the 16.7% random baseline for six models, suggests the rewriting signal is not only weak but potentially misleading for model identity.
  • The two tasks provide reusable evaluation setups for future detection and attribution papers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the absence of a decontamination check means some AI texts could contain memorized NYT passages; measuring n-gram overlap between each synthetic text and its paired human story would reveal whether the labels are clean.
  • Inference: because human stories are full articles while AI outputs are generated from short abstracts, length alone may drive part of the detection signal; a word-count-controlled variant of Task A would separate style from length.
  • Inference: the attribution task's below-chance baseline could be improved by learning model-specific stylistic signatures, but the current dataset's six generators may not have enough contrast for such a model to emerge.
  • Inference: if the dataset is extended to newer LLMs, the abstract-prompting protocol should be combined with a leakage audit, otherwise the benchmark's value for future detectors is uncertain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a dataset for human vs. AI text detection, combining New York Times articles with synthetic versions generated by six LLMs (Gemma-2-9b, Mistral-7B, Qwen-2-72B, LLaMA-8B, Yi-Large, GPT-4o). The generation protocol uses article abstracts as prompts and fetches full human-authored stories from the web. The authors report baseline results for two tasks: human vs. AI classification (58.35% accuracy) and model attribution among the six generators (8.92% accuracy), using an edit-distance rewriting method inspired by RAIDAR. The paper claims over 58,000 samples in the body and Table 1, but the abstract states over 73,193 samples. Two different Hugging Face repository links are given. The central contribution is the dataset itself, with the baselines intended as references for future work.

Significance. If the dataset is valid and the counts/labels are correct, it has clear potential value: it pairs real NYT journalism with outputs from multiple current LLMs, enabling detection and attribution research in a realistic journalistic domain. The paper's baseline method is borrowed from RAIDAR rather than novel, so the dataset is the main contribution. However, the internal inconsistencies and the implausible Task B baseline mean the dataset and baselines cannot currently be trusted. The below-chance attribution accuracy strongly suggests an evaluation error, and the lack of contamination analysis raises doubts about label integrity. These issues must be resolved before the resource can serve as a benchmark.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §3.4, Table 1] The sample count is inconsistent: the abstract reports 'over 73,193 text samples' while §3.4 and Table 1 sum to 58,502 samples (7,321+7,295+7,310+7,316+7,314+7,306+7,319+7,321). Additionally, the Hugging Face link in the abstract (Rajarshi-Roy-research/Defactify_Text_Dataset) differs from the body (gsingh1-py/train). This makes the released resource ambiguous and directly undermines the comprehensive-dataset claim. Please provide a single canonical repository with a verified, consistent sample count.
  2. [§4, Table 2] Task B (model attribution) is reported at 8.92% accuracy. With six LLM classes and roughly balanced column counts in Table 1, random guessing would yield 16.7% accuracy; the reported result is below chance. This strongly indicates a label-misalignment or evaluation-pipeline error (e.g., using the human threshold for all classes, or mis-assigning generated outputs). As baselines are a central contribution, please rerun the experiments with a clearly specified train/test split and report a per-class confusion matrix or per-class accuracy to verify the result.
  3. [§3.2–§3.3] The generation protocol uses NYT abstracts as prompts, but the paper describes no decontamination step: no deduplication, n-gram overlap filtering, or near-duplicate check between the generated outputs and the corresponding human_story. Since current LLMs are trained on web-scale corpora that include NYT content, some generated texts may be near-verbatim copies of the human article rather than original synthetic texts. If even a fraction of labels are contaminated in this way, Task A's 58.35% accuracy becomes a copy-detection artifact rather than a measure of AI-text detectability. Please add quantitative contamination analysis (e.g., longest common substring, embedding similarity, or n-gram overlap) for all six generators, or describe a filtering procedure that was applied.
  4. [§3.6, §4] The baseline evaluation protocol is underspecified. The paper does not state how the train/test split is constructed, which candidate LLMs are used as rewriters, how many rewrite prompts are issued per input, or how the 'median of maximum edit distance' threshold is applied across the training set. The threshold is a fitted parameter, and if it is evaluated on the same data used to set it, the reported accuracy is optimistically biased. Please provide a complete, reproducible experimental setup, including any hyperparameters and, ideally, confidence intervals across multiple splits.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1] Typo in the caption: 'Huam generated' should be 'Human generated'.
  2. [Table 1] Typo in the caption: 'varion' should be 'various'.
  3. [§3.4] The sentence 'The dataset provides original article abstracts as prompts, full human-authored narratives' is grammatically incomplete and appears in both the abstract and the body. Please rephrase.
  4. [References] Reference [10] (Yi) has broken citation formatting, and reference [25] uses 'Anonymous' as an author; this may not meet the venue's citation style. Model names are also inconsistent (e.g., 'GPT_4-o' vs. 'GPT-4-o').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports dataset construction and empirical baseline measurements, with no derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (1) construction of a dataset pairing NYT human stories with LLM-generated texts prompted by article abstracts, and (2) baseline accuracy numbers for human-vs-AI classification (58.35%) and model attribution (8.92%). These are empirical measurements, not derived predictions. The AI/human labels are true by construction: each AI text was actually generated by the named model from the abstract, and each human story was fetched from the article URL. No equation defines a target quantity in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a predicted result. The Raidar-style rewriting baseline is explicitly imported from external work [20], and the threshold is described as 'chosen as the median of the maximum edit distance across training samples'—a fitted hyperparameter, not a circularly defined outcome. The paper does rely on some self-citations (Factify series), but these appear in related-work context and are not load-bearing for the dataset or baseline results. The manuscript's inconsistencies (58,000 vs. 73,193 samples, differing Hugging Face URLs, and the absence of a decontamination check against NYT memorization) are serious data-quality, reproducibility, and construct-validity concerns, but they are not instances of circular reasoning: even if some AI outputs are near-copies of NYT articles, the labels still denote the actual generating model. Those issues belong to correctness and reliability review, not to the circularity score. Therefore, no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on domain assumptions about the generation setup and the rewriting heuristic, plus one threshold fitted to the training set. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Human-vs-AI edit-distance threshold = not reported (set to median of maximum edit distance over training samples)
    Section 3.6: accuracy 58.35% depends on this training-set-derived threshold; it is not held out or cross-validated.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption An LLM rewriting text produces fewer edits when the text was generated by the same or another LLM than when written by a human.
    Section 3.6 (second paragraph): the entire baseline rests on this RAIDAR-inspired hypothesis; if false, the baseline results are meaningless.
  • domain assumption Article abstracts are sufficient prompts to generate full-length, comparable narratives with the six LLMs.
    Section 3.2–3.3: no generation instruction, length, or style constraints are reported; output quality/comparability to NYT articles is unverified.
  • domain assumption The human stories fetched via web URLs are the authentic NYT full texts.
    Section 3.2: scraping is described but no verification of data integrity is provided.
  • standard math Levenshtein edit distance is an appropriate metric for rewrite fidelity.
    Section 3.6; a standard, but the paper does not validate its fit to the task.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Dataset for Human vs. AI Generated Text Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KFQ6ZWY

@misc{pith2026251022874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Dataset for Human vs. AI Generated Text Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KFQ6ZWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.22874}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led to increasingly human-like AI-generated text, raising concerns about content authenticity, misinformation, and trustworthiness. Addressing the challenge of reliably detecting AI-generated text and attributing it to specific models requires large-scale, diverse, and well-annotated datasets. In this work, we present a comprehensive dataset comprising over 73,193 text samples that combine authentic New York Times articles with synthetic versions generated by multiple state-of-the-art LLMs including Gemma-2-9b, Mistral-7B, Qwen-2-72B, LLaMA-8B, Yi-Large, and GPT-4-o. The dataset provides original article abstracts as prompts, full human-authored narratives. We establish baseline results for two key tasks: distinguishing human-written from AI-generated text, achieving an accuracy of 58.35\%, and attributing AI texts to their generating models with an accuracy of 8.92\%. By bridging real-world journalistic content with modern generative models, the dataset aims to catalyze the development of robust detection and attribution methods, fostering trust and transparency in the era of generative AI. Our dataset is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Rajarshi-Roy-research/Defactify_Text_Dataset

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.22874 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wordcloud of human written and AI generated text. 3.2. Feature Extraction and Transformation Abstract as Prompt: The article abstract is extracted and used as a prompt to generate AI text outputs. This serves as a controlled input for language model experiments, ensuring that each generated output is grounded in real-world journalistic content. Web URL for Human Story Extraction: The provided web URL for each articl… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. A Comprehensive Dataset for Human vs. AI Generated Image Detection

    cs.CV 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MS COCOAI provides 96,000 caption-aligned real and synthetic images from five generators, with baseline scores of about 0.80 for real-vs-AI detection and 0.45 for generator attribution.

  2. Team DACTYL at PAN 2026: Bayesian Data Mixing and Empirical X-risk Minimization for AI-text Detection

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Bayesian-uncertainty text filter, partial-AUROC training, and MCGrad calibration produce the second-ranked AI-text detector (0.974 mean score) on the PAN 2026 leaderboard.

  3. Latent Trajectory Discrimination for AI-Generated Text Detection

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A sliding-window, trajectory-difference contrastive learner beats six AI-text detectors on RAID, NYT-AI, and OpenReview reviews.

  4. Findings of the Counter Turing Test: AI-Generated Text Detection

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    Shared task findings show near-perfect binary detection of AI-generated text but greater difficulty in attributing outputs to particular language models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Patwa, M

    P. Patwa, M. Bhardwaj, V. Guptha, G. Kumari, S. Sharma, S. Pykl, A. Das, A. Ekbal, M. S. Akhtar, T. Chakraborty, Overview of constraint 2021 shared tasks: Detecting english covid-19 fake news and hindi hostile posts, in: International Workshop on Combating Online Hostile Posts in Regional Languages during Emergency Situation, Springer, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Karimi, J

    N. Karimi, J. Gambrell, Hundreds die of poisoning in iran as fake news suggests methanol cure for virus, The times of israel (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Morales, R

    M. Morales, R. Barbar, D. Gandhi, S. Landage, J. Bae, A. Vats, J. Kothari, S. Shankar, R. Suku- maran, H. Mathur, K. Misra, A. Saxena, P. Patwa, S. T. V., M. Arseni, S. Advani, K. Jakimowicz, S. Anand, P. Katiyar, A. Mehra, R. Iyer, S. Murali, A. Mahindra, M. Dmitrienko, S. Srivastava, A. Gangavarapu, S. Penrod, V. Sharma, A. Singh, R. Raskar, Covid-19 te...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Zellers, A

    R. Zellers, A. Holtzman, H. Rashkin, Y. Bisk, A. Farhadi, F. Roesner, Y. Choi, Defending against neural fake news, 2020. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12616.arXiv:1905.12616

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Mitchell, Y

    E. Mitchell, Y. Lee, A. Khazatsky, C. D. Manning, C. Finn, Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine- generated text detection using probability curvature, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11305. arXiv:2301.11305

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    G. Team, M. Riviere, S. Pathak, P. G. Sessa, C. Hardin, S. Bhupatiraju, et al., Gemma 2: Im- proving open language models at a practical size, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00118. arXiv:2408.00118

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. de las Casas, F. Bres- sand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier, L. R. Lavaud, M.-A. Lachaux, P. Stock, T. L. Scao, T. Lavril, T. Wang, T. Lacroix, W. E. Sayed, Mistral 7b, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06825. arXiv:2310.06825

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    J. Bai, S. Bai, Y. Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, et al., Qwen technical report, 2023. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2309.16609.arXiv:2309.16609

    arXiv 2023

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Touvron, T

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozière, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, A. Rodriguez, A. Joulin, E. Grave, G. Lample, Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971.arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Young, B

    AI, :, A. Young, B. Chen, C. Li, C. Huang, G. Zhang, et al., Yi: Open foundation models by 01.ai,

  3. [11]

    Achiam, S

    OpenAI, J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Al- tenschmidt, S. Altman, et al., Gpt-4 technical report, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774. arXiv:2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Dugan, A

    L. Dugan, A. Hwang, F. Trhlik, J. M. Ludan, A. Zhu, H. Xu, D. Ippolito, C. Callison-Burch, Raid: A shared benchmark for robust evaluation of machine-generated text detectors, 2024. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.07940.arXiv:2405.07940

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Y. Wang, J. Mansurov, P. Ivanov, J. Su, A. Shelmanov, A. Tsvigun, C. Whitehouse, O. Mo- hammed Afzal, T. Mahmoud, T. Sasaki, T. Arnold, A. F. Aji, N. Habash, I. Gurevych, P. Nakov, M4: Multi-generator, multi-domain, and multi-lingual black-box machine-generated text de- tectio...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Uchendu, Z

    A. Uchendu, Z. Ma, T. Le, R. Zhang, D. Lee, Turingbench: A benchmark environment for turing test in the age of neural text generation, 2021. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.13296. arXiv:2109.13296

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. Guo, X. Zhang, Z. Wang, M. Jiang, J. Nie, Y. Ding, J. Yue, Y. Wu, How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07597. arXiv:2301.07597

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Abassy, K

    M. Abassy, K. Elozeiri, A. Aziz, M. N. Ta, R. V. Tomar, B. Adhikari, S. E. D. Ahmed, Y. Wang, O. Mohammed Afzal, Z. Xie, J. Mansurov, E. Artemova, V. Mikhailov, R. Xing, J. Geng, H. Iqbal, Z. M. Mujahid, T. Mahmoud, A. Tsvigun, A. F. Aji, A. Shelmanov, N. Habash, I. Gurevych, ...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    M. N. Ta, D. C. Van, D.-A. Hoang, M. Le-Anh, T. Nguyen, M. A. T. Nguyen, Y. Wang, P. Nakov, S. Dinh, Faid: Fine-grained ai-generated text detection using multi-task auxiliary and multi-level contrastive learning, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14271.arXiv:2505.14271

    2025

  10. [18]

    J. Wu, R. Zhan, D. F. Wong, S. Yang, X. Yang, Y. Yuan, L. S. Chao, Detectrl: Benchmarking llm-generated text detection in real-world scenarios, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23746. arXiv:2410.23746

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. Hans, A. Schwarzschild, V. Cherepanova, H. Kazemi, A. Saha, M. Goldblum, J. Geiping, T. Gold- stein, Spotting LLMs with binoculars: Zero-shot detection of machine-generated text, 2024. arXiv:2401.12070

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. Mao, C. Vondrick, H. Wang, J. Yang, Raidar: generative ai detection via rewriting, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12970.arXiv:2401.12970

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    G. Bao, Y. Zhao, Z. Teng, L. Yang, Y. Zhang, Fast-detectgpt: Efficient zero-shot detection of machine- generated text via conditional probability curvature, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05130. arXiv:2310.05130

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    X. Han, Q. Li, J. Ni, M. Zulkernine, Robustness assessment and enhancement of text watermarking for google’s synthid, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.20228 (2025).arXiv:2508.20228

    2025

  15. [23]

    Zhang, F

    R. Zhang, F. Koushanfar, Watermarking large language models and the generated content: Oppor- tunities and challenges, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.19096.arXiv:2410.19096

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    URL: https: //huggingface.co/openai-community/roberta-base-openai-detector

    OpenAI, Roberta base openai detector, Dataloop/HuggingFace model card, 2020. URL: https: //huggingface.co/openai-community/roberta-base-openai-detector

    2020

  17. [25]

    URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=QGrkbaan79

    Anonymous, Radar: Robust ai-text detection via adversarial learning, OpenReview, 2023. URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=QGrkbaan79

    2023

  18. [26]

    liar, liar pants on fire

    W. Y. Wang, “liar, liar pants on fire”: A new benchmark dataset for fake news detection, in: R. Barzilay, M.-Y. Kan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), Association for Computational Linguisti...

    2017

  19. [27]

    Alhindi, S

    T. Alhindi, S. Petridis, S. Muresan, Where is your evidence: Improving fact-checking by justification modeling, in: J. Thorne, A. Vlachos, O. Cocarascu, C. Christodoulopoulos, A. Mittal (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER), Asso...

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    K. Shu, D. Mahudeswaran, S. Wang, D. Lee, H. Liu, Fakenewsnet: A data repository with news content, social context and spatialtemporal information for studying fake news on social media,

  21. [29]

    Thorne, A

    J. Thorne, A. Vlachos, C. Christodoulopoulos, A. Mittal, FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification, in: M. Walker, H. Ji, A. Stent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:...

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Mishra, S

    S. Mishra, S. Suryavardan, A. Bhaskar, P. Chopra, A. N. Reganti, P. Patwa, A. Das, T. Chakraborty, A. P. Sheth, A. Ekbal, et al., Factify: A multi-modal fact verification dataset., in: DE-FACTIFY@ AAAI, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Suryavardan, S

    S. Suryavardan, S. Mishra, P. Patwa, M. Chakraborty, A. Rani, A. Reganti, A. Chadha, A. Das, A. Sheth, M. Chinnakotla, et al., Factify 2: A multimodal fake news and satire news dataset, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03897 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Suresh, A

    S. Suresh, A. Rani, P. Patwa, A. Reganti, V. Jain, A. Chadha, A. Das, A. Sheth, A. Ekbal, Overview of factify5wqa: Fact verification through 5w question-answering, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04236 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L. Cui, D. Lee, Coaid: Covid-19 healthcare misinformation dataset, 2020. URL: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2006.00885.arXiv:2006.00885

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Patwa, S

    P. Patwa, S. Sharma, S. Pykl, V. Guptha, G. Kumari, M. S. Akhtar, A. Ekbal, A. Das, T. Chakraborty, Fighting an infodemic: Covid-19 fake news dataset, in: International Workshop on Combating Online Hostile Posts in Regional Languages during Emergency Situation, Springer, 2021,...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Augenstein, C

    I. Augenstein, C. Lioma, D. Wang, L. Chaves Lima, C. Hansen, C. Hansen, J. G. Simonsen, MultiFC: A real-world multi-domain dataset for evidence-based fact checking of claims, in: K. Inui, J. Jiang, V. Ng, X. Wan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods i...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Bansal, N

    S. Bansal, N. S. Singh, Mmcfnd: Multimodal multilingual caption-aware fake news detection for low-resource indic languages, arXiv (2024). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10407

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nakamura, S

    K. Nakamura, S. Levy, W. Y. Wang, r/fakeddit: A new multimodal benchmark dataset for fine- grained fake news detection, 2020. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.03854.arXiv:1911.03854

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. Zhou, X. Han, C. Yang, Z. Liu, L. Wang, C. Li, M. Sun, GEAR: Graph-based evidence aggregating and reasoning for fact verification, in: A. Korhonen, D. Traum, L. Màrquez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Associat...

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    J. Chen, R. Zhang, J. Guo, Y. Fan, X. Cheng, Gere: Generative evidence retrieval for fact verification, in: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’22, ACM, 2022, p. 2184–2189. URL: http://dx.doi.o...

    2022

  32. [40]

    J. Ma, C. Chen, C. Hou, X. Yuan, KAPALM: Knowledge grAPh enhAnced language models for fake news detection, in: H. Bouamor, J. Pino, K. Bali (Eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore, 2023...

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Singhal, P

    R. Singhal, P. Patwa, P. Patwa, A. Chadha, A. Das, Evidence-backed fact checking using rag and few-shot in-context learning with llms, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12060 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Y. Wang, F. Ma, Z. Jin, Y. Yuan, G. Xun, K. Jha, L. Su, J. Gao, Eann: Event adversarial neural networks for multi-modal fake news detection, in: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’18, Association for Computi...

    2018

  35. [43]

    Singhal, A

    S. Singhal, A. Kabra, M. Sharma, R. R. Shah, T. Chakraborty, P. Kumaraguru, Spotfake+: A multimodal framework for fake news detection via transfer learning (student abstract), volume 34, 2020, pp. 13915–13916. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/7230. doi:10....

    2020

  36. [44]

    Y. Chen, D. Li, P. Zhang, J. Sui, Q. Lv, L. Tun, L. Shang, Cross-modal ambiguity learning for multimodal fake news detection, in: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, WWW ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2022, p. 2897–2905. URL: https: //doi....

    2022

  37. [45]

    Patwa, S

    P. Patwa, S. Mishra, S. Suryavardan, A. Bhaskar, P. Chopra, A. Reganti, A. Das, T. Chakraborty, A. Sheth, A. Ekbal, et al., Benchmarking multi-modal entailment for fact verification, Proceedings of Defactify workshop (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Suryavardan, S

    S. Suryavardan, S. Mishra, M. Chakraborty, P. Patwa, A. Rani, A. Chadha, A. Reganti, A. Das, A. Sheth, M. Chinnakotla, et al., Findings of factify 2: multimodal fake news detection, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10475 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    K. Shu, L. Cui, S. Wang, D. Lee, H. Liu, defend: Explainable fake news detection, in: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’19, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019, p. 395–405. URL: htt...

    2019

  40. [48]

    T. Bian, X. Xiao, T. Xu, P. Zhao, W. Huang, Y. Rong, J. Huang, Rumor detection on social media with bi-directional graph convolutional networks, volume 34, 2020, pp. 549–556. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/5393. doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i01.5393

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Y. Han, S. Karunasekera, C. Leckie, Graph neural networks with continual learning for fake news detection from social media, 2020. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.03316.arXiv:2007.03316

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Y. Dun, K. Tu, C. Chen, C. Hou, X. Yuan, Kan: Knowledge-aware attention network for fake news detection, volume 35, 2021, pp. 81–89. URL: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/16080. doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i1.16080

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    C. Chen, F. Cai, X. Hu, J. Zheng, Y. Ling, H. Chen, An entity-graph based reasoning method for fact verification, Information Processing & Management 58 (2021) 102472. URL: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457320309614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ipm...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Patwa, S

    P. Patwa, S. Filice, Z. Chen, G. Castellucci, O. Rokhlenko, S. Malmasi, Enhancing low-resource llms classification with peft and synthetic data, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02422 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kaddour, Q

    J. Kaddour, Q. Liu, Synthetic data generation in low-resource settings via fine-tuning of large language models, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01119.arXiv:2310.01119

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H. Song, D. Razdan, Y. Qian, A. G. Chowdhury, P. Patwa, A. Chadha, S. Zhang, S. Keshava, H. Marlowe, Learning from generalization patterns: An evaluation-driven approach to enhanced data augmentation for fine-tuning small language models, 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510....

    2025

  47. [2019]

    URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01286.arXiv:1809.01286

    arXiv

  48. [2025]

    URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04652.arXiv:2403.04652

    arXiv

  49. [4697]

    doi:10.18653/v1/D19-1475

    URL: https://aclanthology.org/D19-1475/. doi:10.18653/v1/D19-1475

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.