Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Explainable Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey

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

Explainable Automated Fact-Checking: A Survey

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords fact-checkingexplanationssystemsadvancesautomateddesirableexistingfurther
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.

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.