Automated Fact-Checking

Multimodal misinformation increasingly leverages visual persuasion, where repurposed or manipulated images strengthen misleading text. We introduce \textbf{RW-Post}, a post-aligned \textbf{text--image benchmark} for real-world multimodal fact-checking with \emph{auditable} annotations: each instance links the original social-media post with reasoning traces and explicitly linked evidence items derived from human fact-check articles via an LLM-assisted extraction-and-auditing pipeline. RW-Post supports controlled evaluation across closed-book, evidence-bounded, and open-web regimes, enabling systematic diagnosis of visual grounding and evidence utilization. We provide \textbf{AgentFact} as a reference verification baseline and benchmark strong open-source LVLMs under unified protocols. Experiments show substantial headroom: current models struggle with faithful evidence grounding, while evidence-bounded evaluation improves both accuracy and faithfulness. Code and dataset will be released at https://github.com/xudanni0927/AgentFact.

The use of content features, particularly textual and linguistic for fake news detection is under-researched, despite empirical evidence showing the features could contribute to differentiating real and fake news. To this end, this study investigates a selection of content features such as word bigrams, part of speech distribution etc. to improve fake news detection. We performed a series of experiments on a new dataset gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic and using Decision Tree, K-Nearest Neighbor, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine and Random Forest. Random Forest yielded the best results, followed closely by Support Vector Machine, across all setups. In general, both the textual and linguistic features were found to improve fake news detection when used separately, however, combining them into a single model did not improve the detection significantly. Differences were also noted between the use of bigrams and part of speech tags. The study shows that textual and linguistic features can be used successfully in detecting fake news using the traditional machine learning approach as opposed to deep learning.

Fact-checking articles encode rich supporting evidence and reasoning, yet this evidence remains largely inaccessible to automated verification systems due to unstructured presentation. We introduce PrimeFacts, a methodology and resource for extracting fine-grained evidence from full fact-checking articles. We compile 13,106 PolitiFact articles with claims, verdicts, and all referenced sources, and we identify 49,718 in-article hyperlinks as natural anchors to pinpoint key evidence. Our framework leverages large language models (LLMs) to rewrite these anchor sentences into stand-alone, context-independent premises and investigates the extraction of additional implicit evidence. In evaluations on cross-article evidence retrieval and claim verification, the extracted premises substantially improve performance. Decontextualized evidence yields higher retrievability, achieving up to a 30 percent relative gain in Mean Reciprocal Rank over verbatim sentences, and using the evidence for verdict prediction raises Macro-F1 by 10-20 points over the baseline. These gains are consistent across different verdict granularities (2-class vs. 5-class) and model architectures. A qualitative analysis indicates that the decontextualized premises remain faithful to the original sources. Our work highlights the promise of reusing fact-checkers' evidence for automation and provides a large-scale resource of structured evidence from real-world fact-checks.

Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.

Incomplete propagation data significantly hinders robust fake news detection. Recent approaches leverage large language models to simulate missing user interactions via role-playing, thereby enriching propagation with synthetic signals. However, such propagation data is intrinsically unreliable, and directly fusing it can lead to biased representations, leading to limited detection performance. In this paper, we alleviate the unreliability of synthetic propagation from the mutual information perspective and propose a novel information-theoretic propagation denoising and fusion (InfoPDF) framework to learn effective representations from both real and synthetic propagation. Specifically, we first generate attribute-specific synthetic propagation using large language models. Then we model each synthetic propagation graph as a probabilistic latent distribution to guide reliability-aware adaptive fusion with real propagation. During training, we design a mutual information-based objective to learn compressed and task-sufficient propagation representations. It jointly suppresses noisy signals across attribute-specific synthetic propagation, maintains consistency between real and synthetic propagation representations, and ensures task sufficiency for fake news detection and attribute prediction. Experiments on three real-world datasets show that InfoPDF consistently achieves superior performance across various fake news detection tasks. Further analysis demonstrates that InfoPDF can estimate attribute-level reliabilities and learn more discriminative propagation representations.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated news credibility assessment, yet it remains unclear whether they apply even-handed standards across journalistic genres. We examine whether zero-shot LLMs are more likely to misclassify legitimate entertainment news as fake than legitimate hard news, using a within-dataset design on GossipCop from FakeNewsNet. Across four frontier models, we find a clear but model-specific genre asymmetry: DeepSeek-V3.2 and GPT-5.2 show false-positive-rate gaps of 10.1 and 8.8 percentage points, respectively (both $p < .001$), whereas Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3 Flash show no comparable difference. A style-swap experiment yields only limited and inconsistent changes, suggesting that the asymmetry is not reducible to stylistic register alone. Prompt-based mitigation is likewise possible but not generic: framing the model as an entertainment-news fact-checker reduces false positives for DeepSeek-V3.2 by about 50% without detectable recall loss, but offers little improvement for GPT-5.2. Exploratory qualitative coding further suggests two recurring error patterns in sampled false positives: treating private-life claims as inherently unverifiable and discounting entertainment journalism as an epistemically weaker genre. Taken together, these findings show that aggregate performance metrics can obscure structured false positives within legitimate journalism. We argue that LLM-based credibility assessment may not only evaluate truth claims but also differentially recognize the legitimacy of journalistic genres, and that evaluation should therefore include genre-stratified false-positive analysis alongside overall accuracy.

Multi-Hop Fact Verification requires complex reasoning across disparate evidence, posing significant challenges for Large Language Models , which may suffer from hallucinations and fractured logical chains. Existing methods, while improving transparency via Chain-of-Thought , often lack explicit modeling of the structural dependencies between evidence and claims. In this work, we introduce an SCM-inspired framework that grounds reasoning in explicit directed dependency graphs, treating verification as a constructive structural reasoning process rather than full causal inference with interventions or counterfactual semantics. We empirically identify an "inverted U-shaped" correlation between reasoning-chain length and accuracy, revealing that excessive structural complexity can degrade performance. To address this, we propose a rule-based reinforcement learning strategy using Group Relative Policy Optimization. This approach dynamically optimizes the trade-off between structural depth and conciseness. Extensive experiments on HoVer and EX-FEVER demonstrate that our SCM-GRPO framework outperforms strong baselines while producing more traceable reasoning structures for complex fact verification.

Fake news generally refers to false information that is spread deliberately to deceive people, which has detrimental social effects. Existing fake news detection methods primarily learn the semantic features from news content or integrate structural features from propagation. However, in practical scenarios, due to the semantic ambiguity of informal language and unreliable user interactive behaviors on social media, there are inherent semantic and structural noises in news content and propagation. Although some recent works consider the effect of irrelevant user interactions in a hybrid-modeling way, they still suffer from the mutual interference between structural noise and semantic noise, leading to limited performance for robust detection. To alleviate this issue, this paper proposes a novel Propagation Structure-Semantic Transfer Learning framework (PSS-TL) for robust fake news detection under a teacher-student architecture. Specifically, we design dual teacher models to learn semantics knowledge and structure knowledge from noisy news content and propagation structure independently. Besides, we design a Multi-channel Knowledge Distillation (MKD) loss to enable the student model to acquire specialized knowledge from the teacher models, thereby avoiding mutual interference. Extensive experiments on two real-world datasets validate the effectiveness and robustness of our method.

Social media platforms have become primary channels for health information in the Global South. Using gomutra (cow urine) discourse on YouTube in India as a case study, we present a post-facto Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted discourse analysis of 30 multilingual transcripts showing that promotional content blends sacred traditional language with pseudo-scientific claims in ways that sophisticated debunking content itself mirrors, creating a rhetorical register that LLMs, trained predominantly on Western corpora, are systematically ill-equipped to analyse. Varying prompt tone across three LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.1), we find that culturally embedded health misinformation does not look like ordinary misinformation, and this cultural obfuscation extends to gendered rhetoric and prompt design, compounding analytical unreliability. Our findings argue that cultural competency in LLM-assisted discourse analysis cannot be retrofitted through prompt engineering alone.

Online misinformation is one of the most challenging issues lately, yielding severe consequences, including political polarization, attacks on democracy, and public health risks. Misinformation manifests in any platform with a large user base, including online social networks and messaging apps. It permeates all media and content forms, including images, text, audio, and video. Distinctly, video-based misinformation represents a multifaceted challenge for fact-checkers, given the ease with which individuals can record and upload videos on various video-sharing platforms. Previous research efforts investigated detecting video-based misinformation, focusing on whether a video shares misinformation or not on a video level. While this approach is useful, it only provides a limited and non-easily interpretable view of the problem given that it does not provide an additional context of when misinformation occurs within videos and what content (i.e., claims) are responsible for the video's misinformation nature. In this work, we attempt to bridge this research gap by creating two novel datasets that allow us to explore misinformation detection on videos via audio transcripts, focusing on identifying the span of videos that are responsible for the video's misinformation claim (misinformation span detection). We present two new datasets for this task. We transcribe each video's audio to text, identifying the video segment in which the misinformation claims appears, resulting in two datasets of more than 500 videos with over 2,400 segments containing annotated fact-checked claims. Then, we employ classifiers built with state-of-the-art language models, and our results show that we can identify in which part of a video there is misinformation with an F1 score of 0.68. We make publicly available our annotated datasets. We also release all transcripts, audio and videos.

The rapid spread of misinformation on social media highlights the need for robust, automated fact correction frameworks. However, existing works rely on supervised learning from manually annotated claim-evidence pairs, which are scarce and prone to biases, limiting their generalization across domains. Moreover, these methods overlook semantic faithfulness in their correction process. To address these challenges, we propose Mask-to-Correct (M$_2$C), a training-free, inference-only Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) based framework that leverages diversity-aware masking to identify erroneous spans of claims and evaluate the faithfulness of corrections using retrieved evidence. However, the effectiveness of RAG heavily depends on the choice of retriever, which may vary across queries. To mitigate this, we further introduce M$_2$C$^+$, an ensemble-based framework that combines corrections across multiple rankers to reduce retrieval bias and improve robustness. Extensive experiments on the benchmark datasets demonstrate that our proposed frameworks consistently outperform all baselines, achieving up to 14% improvement in SARI scores, without using gold evidence.

Half-truths, claims that are factually correct yet misleading due to omitted context, remain a blind spot for fact verification systems focused on explicit falsehoods. Addressing such omission-based manipulation requires reasoning not only about what is said, but also about what is left unsaid. We propose RADAR, a role-anchored multi-agent debate framework for omission-aware fact verification under realistic, noisy retrieval. RADAR assigns complementary roles to a Politician and a Scientist, who reason adversarially over shared retrieved evidence, moderated by a neutral Judge. A dual-threshold early termination controller adaptively decides when sufficient reasoning has been reached to issue a verdict. Experiments show that RADAR consistently outperforms strong single- and multi-agent baselines across datasets and backbones, improving omission detection accuracy while reducing reasoning cost. These results demonstrate that role-anchored, retrieval-grounded debate with adaptive control is an effective and scalable framework for uncovering missing context in fact verification. The code is available at https://github.com/tangyixuan/RADAR.

Audio platforms have evolved beyond entertainment. They have become central to public discourse, from podcasts and radio to WhatsApp voice notes and live streams. With millions of shows and hundreds of millions of listeners, audio platforms are now a major channel for misinformation. Yet existing fact-checking pipelines are mostly designed for written claims, overlooking the unique properties of spoken media. We argue that audio misinformation is not merely textual content with transcripts: it is structurally different because it is both spoken - carrying persuasive force through prosody, pacing, and emotion - and conversational - unfolding across turns, speakers, and episodes. These dual properties introduce verification difficulties that traditional methods rarely face. This position paper synthesizes evidence across modalities and platforms, examines datasets and methods, and highlights why existing pipelines fail on audio. We argue that advancing fact-checking requires rethinking verification pipelines around the spoken and conversational realities of audio.

The proliferation of financial misinformation poses a severe threat to market stability and investor trust, misleading market behavior and creating critical information asymmetry. Detecting such misleading narratives is inherently challenging, particularly in real-world scenarios where external evidence or supplementary references for cross-verification are strictly unavailable. This paper presents our winning methodology for the "Reference-Free Financial Misinformation Detection" shared task. Built upon the recently proposed RFC-BENCH framework (Jiang et al. 2026), this task challenges models to determine the veracity of financial claims by relying solely on internal semantic understanding and contextual consistency, rather than external fact-checking. To address this formidable evaluation setup, we propose a comprehensive framework that capitalizes on the reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs). Our approach systematically integrates in-context learning, specifically zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies, with Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) to optimally align the models with the subtle linguistic cues of financial manipulation. Our proposed system demonstrated superior efficacy, successfully securing the first-place ranking on both official leaderboards. Specifically, we achieved an accuracy of 95.4% on the public test set and 96.3% on the private test set, highlighting the robustness of our method and contributing to the acceleration of context-aware misinformation detection in financial Natural Language Processing. Our models (14B and 32B) are available at https://huggingface.co/KaiNKaiho.

Professional fact-checkers rely on domain knowledge and deep contextual understanding to verify claims. Large language models (LLMs) and large reasoning models (LRMs) lack such grounding and primarily reason from available evidence alone, creating a mismatch between expert-led and fully automated claim verification. To mitigate this gap, we posit human-AI collaboration as a more promising path forward, where expert feedback, grounded in real-world knowledge and domain expertise, guides the model's reasoning. However, existing LRMs are hard to calibrate to natural language feedback, particularly in a multi-turn interaction setup. We propose Co-FactChecker, a framework for human-AI collaborative claim verification. We introduce a new interaction paradigm that treats the model's thinking trace as a shared scratchpad. Co-FactChecker translates expert feedback into trace-edits that introduce targeted modifications to the trace, sidestepping the shortcomings of dialogue-based interaction. We provide theoretical results showing that trace-editing offers advantages over multi-turn dialogue, and our automatic evaluations demonstrate that Co-FactChecker outperforms existing autonomous and human-AI collaboration approaches. Human evaluations further show that Co-FactChecker is preferred over multi-turn dialogue, producing higher quality reasoning and verdicts along with relatively easier to interpret and more useful thinking traces.

Evaluating misinformation requires distinguishing whether readers believe content from whether they would share it. Asking large language models (LLMs) both questions yields two scores, but does the sharing answer contribute information beyond the credibility answer? We audit eight model versions on 290 synthetic misinformation articles, using 1,256 paired survey responses with 317 participant identifiers as an external validity criterion. An initial reversal motivates the audit: every model's raw sharing score predicts mean human sharing less accurately than its credibility score. This ordering changes after offset correction, so it does not by itself diagnose missing information. We instead distinguish score reconstructability, persistence across elicitation formats, and incremental human validity. Credibility predicts 30.8-72.5% of model-sharing variation relative to a held-out constant baseline; remaining sharing differences correlate at 0.61-0.75 across question-order and separate-question conditions. Yet adding model sharing to human and model credibility yields only -0.25% to +0.69% error reduction with fixed regression, with all exploratory intervals crossing zero. Flexible prediction and format changes do not establish an improvement. Sharing answers therefore contain structured variation beyond the observed credibility score, without established incremental validity for human sharing in these data. The findings motivate validating the contribution of each elicited outcome, beyond inspecting score differences or agreement across prompts.

Harmful content detectors, particularly disinformation classifiers, are predominantly developed and evaluated on Standard American English (SAE), leaving their robustness to dialectal variation unexplored. We present DIA-HARM, the first benchmark for evaluating disinformation detection robustness across 50 English dialects spanning U.S., British, African, Caribbean, and Asia-Pacific varieties. Using Multi-VALUE's linguistically grounded transformations, we introduce D-CUBE (Dialectal Disinformation Detection Corpus), a core corpus component of DIA-HARM comprising 195K samples derived from established disinformation benchmarks. Our evaluation of 16 detection models reveals systematic vulnerabilities: human-written dialectal content degrades detection by 1.4-3.6% F1, while AI-generated content remains stable. Fine-tuned transformers substantially outperform zero-shot LLMs (96.6% vs. 78.3% best-case F1), with some models exhibiting catastrophic failures exceeding 33% degradation on mixed content. Cross-dialectal transfer analysis across 2,450 dialect pairs shows that multilingual models (mDeBERTa: 97.2% average F1) generalize effectively, while monolingual models like RoBERTa and XLM-RoBERTa fail on dialectal inputs. These findings demonstrate that current disinformation detectors may systematically disadvantage hundreds of millions of non-SAE speakers worldwide. We release the DIA-HARM benchmark, including the D-CUBE corpus (https://github.com/jsl5710/dia-harm), and evaluation tools (https://jsl5710.github.io/dia-harm).

To efficiently combat the spread of LLM-generated misinformation in the news domain, we present RADAR, a Retrieval-Augmented Detector with Adversarial Refinement for adaptive LLM-generated fake news detection. Our approach employs a generator that rewrites real articles with factual perturbations, paired with a lightweight detector that verifies claims using dense passage retrieval. To enable effective co-evolution, we introduce Verbal Adversarial Feedback (VAF). Rather than relying on scalar rewards, VAF issues structured natural-language critiques; these guide the generator toward more sophisticated evasion attempts, compelling the detector to adapt and improve. Experiments on an LLM-generated fake news benchmark show that RADAR outperforms retrieval-augmented trainable baselines and general-purpose LLMs with retrieval. Further analysis shows that retrieval on both the generator and detector sides improves performance, while VAF and few-shot demonstrations offer complementary benefits. RADAR also transfers better to fake news generated by an unseen external attacker, suggesting improved generalization beyond the specific co-evolved generator used during training.

Fact-checking systems must be scalable and epistemically trustworthy. We introduce Althea, a retrieval-augmented system for user-driven claim evaluation that matches standard pipelines on AVeriTeC while improving supported/refuted discrimination. A longitudinal survey experiment (N=961) treats a ten-day follow-up as a fading test: after modeling a verification procedure, we remove the system and ask whether users reproduce it unaided, testing metalearning rather than one-time accuracy. We compare two AI-assisted treatments, Exploratory (guided reasoning) and Summary (synthesized verdicts), against two baselines, unrelated news and Self-search. The treatments yield the strongest immediate accuracy and confidence gains but do not survive the fading test: on unseen claims they perform no better than news, while Self-search, with no procedure to fade, retains a large advantage. This reveals a factchecking-metalearning tradeoff: conditions that most improve immediate accuracy are least likely to produce metalearning, cautioning against treating AI-delivered verdicts as a source of durable literacy gains.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating fluent utterances but can lack reliable grounding in verified information. At the same time, knowledge-graph-based fact-checkers deliver precise and interpretable evidence, yet suffer from limited coverage or latency. By integrating LLMs with knowledge graphs and real-time search agents, we introduce a hybrid fact-checking approach that leverages the individual strengths of each component. Our system comprises three autonomous steps: 1) a Knowledge Graph (KG) Retrieval for rapid one-hop lookups in DBpedia, 2) an LM-based classification guided by a task-specific labeling prompt, producing outputs with internal rule-based logic, and 3) a Web Search Agent invoked only when KG coverage is insufficient. Our pipeline achieves an F1 score of 0.93 on the FEVER benchmark on the Supported/Refuted split without task-specific fine-tuning. To address Not enough information cases, we conduct a targeted reannotation study showing that our approach frequently uncovers valid evidence for claims originally labeled as Not Enough Information (NEI), as confirmed by both expert annotators and LLM reviewers. With this paper, we present a modular, opensource fact-checking pipeline with fallback strategies and generalization across datasets.

Existing real-world datasets for multimodal fact-checking have multiple limitations: they contain few instances, cover only one or two languages, focus on a single task, or rely on external news article sets to source true claims. To address these shortcomings, we introduce M4FC, a new real-world dataset comprising 4,982 images paired with 6,980 claims. The images, verified by professional fact-checkers from 22 organizations, represent a diverse range of cultural and geographic contexts. Each claim is available in one or two out of ten languages. M4FC spans six multimodal fact-checking tasks: visual claim extraction, claimant intent prediction, fake image detection, image contextualization, location verification, and verdict prediction. We provide baseline results for all tasks and analyze how combining intermediate tasks affects verdict prediction performance. We make our dataset and code publicly available.

With the surge of online misinformation, Large Language Models (LLMs) and Reasoning Large Language Models (RLMs) serving as Automatic Fact-Checking (AFC) systems have emerged as a prominent paradigm for reliable, explainable verification. However, our empirical study reveals that this paradigm faces a critical risk asymmetry challenge when deployed in the real world under resource-constrained environments. While Hotspot Perception Ability (HPA), the capacity to dynamically allocate reasoning resources based on social impact, is essential to mitigate this risk, existing benchmarks lack the social metadata and evaluation framework to meet this urgent evaluation needs, thereby hindering the advancement of these AFC systems. To bridge this gap, we introduce TrendFact, the first benchmark capable of evaluating HPA and three fact-checking tasks. It consists of 7,643 curated samples sourced from trending platforms and professional datasets, with an evidence library containing 366,634 entries. To enable HPA assessment, we propose two novel metrics: the Explanation Consistency Score (ECS) to evaluate the reliability of verification reasoning, and the Hotspot Claim Perception Index (HCPI) to quantify the overall HPA of AFC systems. Extensive experiments demonstrate that existing AFC systems exhibit limited performance on TrendFact. Furthermore, our proposed FactISR framework effectively enhances HPA and computational efficiency for RLMs-served AFC systems.

The rapid spread of false and misleading information on online platforms poses a growing societal challenge, overwhelming the capacity of manual fact-checking and increasing the demand for scalable, reliable automation. Recent advances in generative large language models (LLMs) have broadened the scope of automated fact-checking beyond accuracy-driven prediction. LLMs are now integral components of fact-checking pipelines, supporting tasks such as generating new data, performing and assisting with fact verification, and shaping how fact-checking systems are evaluated. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the role of generative LLMs in automated fact-checking, based on a systematic review of 199 research papers. We introduce a unifying taxonomy that captures how generative LLMs are integrated into fact-checking workflows and analyze their use across core fact-checking tasks, dataset construction and augmentation strategies, task formulations, and evaluation practices. Additionally, we investigate the impact of generative LLMs in multilingual and low-resource settings in fact-checking, highlighting trends, limitations, and gaps in current research. By consolidating fragmented research efforts and identifying methodological patterns, limitations, and open challenges, this survey maps the current state of generative LLMs in automated fact-checking. It aims to support researchers in developing more reliable, interpretable, and inclusive fact-checking systems, while outlining promising directions for future research in this rapidly evolving field.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has raised important concerns about the factual reliability of their outputs, particularly in low-resource languages such as Urdu. Existing automated fact-checking systems are predominantly developed for English, leaving a significant gap for the more than 200 million Urdu speakers worldwide. In this work, we present UrduFactBench and UrduFactQA, two novel hand-annotated benchmarks designed to enable fact-checking and factual consistency evaluation in Urdu. While UrduFactBench focuses on claim verification, UrduFactQA targets the factuality of LLMs in question answering. These resources, the first of their kind for Urdu, were developed through a multi-stage annotation process involving native Urdu speakers. To complement these benchmarks, we introduce UrduFactCheck, a modular fact-checking framework that incorporates both monolingual and translation-based evidence retrieval strategies to mitigate the scarcity of high-quality Urdu evidence. Leveraging these resources, we conduct an extensive evaluation of twelve LLMs and demonstrate that translation-augmented pipelines consistently enhance performance compared to monolingual ones. Our findings reveal persistent challenges for open-source LLMs in Urdu and underscore the importance of developing targeted resources. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/UrduFactCheck.