ClimateCheck 2026: Scientific Fact-Checking and Disinformation Narrative Classification of Climate-related Claims

Detecting climate disinformation narratives typically relies on fixed taxonomies, which do not accommodate emerging narratives. Thus, we re-frame narrative detection as a retrieval task: given a narrative's core message as a query, rank texts from a corpus by alignment with that narrative. This formulation requires no predefined label set and can accommodate emerging narratives. We repurpose three climate disinformation datasets (CARDS, Climate Obstruction, climate change subset of PolyNarrative) for retrieval evaluation and propose SpecFi, a framework that generates hypothetical documents to bridge the gap between abstract narrative descriptions and their concrete textual instantiations. SpecFi uses community summaries from graph-based community detection as few-shot examples for generation, achieving a MAP of 0.505 on CARDS without access to narrative labels. We further introduce narrative variance, an embedding-based difficulty metric, and show via partial correlation analysis that standard retrieval degrades on high-variance narratives (BM25 loses 63.4% of MAP), while SpecFi-CS remains robust (32.7% loss). Our analysis also reveals that unsupervised community summaries converge on descriptions close to expert-crafted taxonomies, suggesting that graph-based methods can surface narrative structure from unlabeled text.

Automated fact-checking (AFC) systems retrieve evidence and predict claim veracity, yet evaluations omit simple baselines, systems are developed for a single benchmark and cannot be trusted to generalise across domains. No prior work cross-evaluates the full two-stage retrieve-then-verify pipeline across diverse datasets, complementing retrieval-only studies (Thakur et al., 2021) and single-stage benchmarking studies (Calamai et al., 2025). We benchmark nine models, ranging from random and sparse baselines to fine-tuned transformers, zero-shot LLMs, and the two highest-ranked systems from the AVeriTeC 2025 shared task, across four datasets spanning scientific, open-web, and climate domains. Three findings stand out: (1) on ClimateCheck claim-only and fine-tuned models outperform zero-shot LLM and top-performing AVeriTeC 2025 systems, highlighting that noisy evidence can degrade veracity prediction; (2) system rankings are strongly domain- and metric-dependent: the best model on SciFact (macro-F1 0.70) drops to 0.31 on ClimateCheck, while the AVeriTeC 2025 winner and runner-up swap rankings based on evaluation metrics and datasets; (3) replacing retrieved evidence with gold annotations improves veracity accuracy by 14-22 points across models, confirming retrieval remains primary bottleneck. We release code, pre-processed datasets, and all results to support reproducible AFC research.

Misinformation verification increasingly occurs in public, fast-moving, and multilingual online settings, where static benchmarks provide an incomplete measure of model reliability. We introduce CommunityFact, a refreshable benchmark for misinformation detection in the wild, with three major goals: coverage, granularity, and redistributability. This release contains 15,992 standalone claims across five languages and two domains. We evaluate ten LLMs under varying inference-time capabilities, including thinking and web-search. Our results show that closed-input verification remains challenging, web access yields the largest gains, and web-enabled LLMs' source-selection policies are systematically misaligned with the sources human Community Notes raters converge on -- a gap that closes through model-specific mechanisms of retrieval expansion or pruning. We further find substantial variation across language-domain slices and across the evidence ecosystems used by web-enabled systems. Beyond evaluation, CommunityFact positions Community Notes as a training signal for claim-conditioned source suggesters that could improve factual verification on novel claims.