Can temporal article-level credibility signals improve domain-level credibility prediction?

Web domain credibility evaluation is vital for combating misinformation. It is conducted by examining factors such as domain type, transparency, and overall reputation. However, assessing the credibility of newly emerging web domains remains challenging since they have no reputation yet. Expert fact-checkers evaluate the credibility of domains by analyzing the content of their articles, including the presence of misinformation, bias, or propaganda. Yet, the ease of large-scale content generation enabled by LLMs has accelerated the creation of new content, rendering manual assessment insufficient and underscoring the need for automated approaches to domain credibility evaluation. In this paper, we introduce our Domain Credibility Evaluation Framework (DCEF), a temporal framework for domain credibility evaluation grounded in expert ratings. DCEF enables us to investigate whether the credibility of web domains can be assessed from their published articles following the workflow of expert fact-checkers, without any prior knowledge of the source domains themselves.

CAAFC: Chronological Actionable Automated Fact-Checker for misinformation / non-factual hallucination detection and correction

With the vast amount of content uploaded every hour, along with the AI generated content that can include hallucinations, Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) has become increasingly vital, as it is infeasible for human fact-checkers to manually verify the sheer volume of information generated online. Professional fact-checkers have identified several gaps in existing AFC systems, noting a misalignment between how these systems operate and how fact-checking is performed in practice. In this paper, we introduce CAAFC (Chronological Actionable Automated Fact-Checker), a frame-work designed to bridge these gaps. It surpasses SOTA AFC and hallucination detection systems across multiple benchmark datasets. CAAFC operates on claims, conversations, and dialogues, enabling it not only to detect factual errors and hallucinations, but also to correct them by providing actionable justifications supported by primary information sources. Furthermore, CAAFC can update evidence and knowledge bases by incorporating recent and contextual information when necessary, thereby enhancing the reliability of fact verification.

FinGrAct: A Framework for FINe-GRrained Evaluation of ACTionability in Explainable Automatic Fact-Checking

The field of explainable Automatic Fact-Checking (AFC) aims to enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of automated fact-verification systems by providing clear and comprehensible explanations. However, the effectiveness of these explanations depends on their actionability --their ability to empower users to make informed decisions and mitigate misinformation. Despite actionability being a critical property of high-quality explanations, no prior research has proposed a dedicated method to evaluate it. This paper introduces FinGrAct, a fine-grained evaluation framework that can access the web, and it is designed to assess actionability in AFC explanations through well-defined criteria and an evaluation dataset. FinGrAct surpasses state-of-the-art (SOTA) evaluators, achieving the highest Pearson and Kendall correlation with human judgments while demonstrating the lowest ego-centric bias, making it a more robust evaluation approach for actionability evaluation in AFC.