Fact-checking with Generative AI: A Systematic Cross-Topic Examination of LLMs Capacity to Detect Veracity of Political Information

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.08404v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:06:40 GMT
• Title: Fact-checking with Generative AI: A Systematic Cross-Topic Examination of LLMs Capacity to Detect Veracity of Political Information
• Authors: Elizaveta Kuznetsova, Ilaria Vitulano, Mykola Makhortykh, Martha Stolze, Tomas Nagy, Victoria Vziatysheva,
• Abstract summary: The purpose of this study is to assess how large language models (LLMs) can be used for fact-checking.<n>We use AI auditing methodology that systematically evaluates performance of five LLMs.<n>The results indicate that models are better at identifying false statements, especially on sensitive topics.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The purpose of this study is to assess how large language models (LLMs) can be used for fact-checking and contribute to the broader debate on the use of automated means for veracity identification. To achieve this purpose, we use AI auditing methodology that systematically evaluates performance of five LLMs (ChatGPT 4, Llama 3 (70B), Llama 3.1 (405B), Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini) using prompts regarding a large set of statements fact-checked by professional journalists (16,513). Specifically, we use topic modeling and regression analysis to investigate which factors (e.g. topic of the prompt or the LLM type) affect evaluations of true, false, and mixed statements. Our findings reveal that while ChatGPT 4 and Google Gemini achieved higher accuracy than other models, overall performance across models remains modest. Notably, the results indicate that models are better at identifying false statements, especially on sensitive topics such as COVID-19, American political controversies, and social issues, suggesting possible guardrails that may enhance accuracy on these topics. The major implication of our findings is that there are significant challenges for using LLMs for factchecking, including significant variation in performance across different LLMs and unequal quality of outputs for specific topics which can be attributed to deficits of training data. Our research highlights the potential and limitations of LLMs in political fact-checking, suggesting potential avenues for further improvements in guardrails as well as fine-tuning.

Related papers

• Exploring Knowledge Boundaries in Large Language Models for Retrieval Judgment [56.87031484108484]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly recognized for their practical applications. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) tackles this challenge and has shown a significant impact on LLMs. By minimizing retrieval requests that yield neutral or harmful results, we can effectively reduce both time and computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-09T15:12:28Z)
• GIVE: Structured Reasoning of Large Language Models with Knowledge Graph Inspired Veracity Extrapolation [108.2008975785364]
  Graph Inspired Veracity Extrapolation (GIVE) is a novel reasoning method that merges parametric and non-parametric memories to improve accurate reasoning with minimal external input. GIVE guides the LLM agent to select the most pertinent expert data (observe), engage in query-specific divergent thinking (reflect), and then synthesize this information to produce the final output (speak)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T03:05:06Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models [12.112914393948415]
  We present RUPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) across diverse reasoning tasks. Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T17:26:44Z)
• Exposing the Achilles' Heel: Evaluating LLMs Ability to Handle Mistakes in Mathematical Reasoning [11.63133816413199]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to Math Word Problems (MWPs) We introduce a novel dataset MWP-MISTAKE, incorporating MWPs with both correct and incorrect reasoning steps generated through rule-based methods and smaller language models. We highlight GPT-$o's superior performance in mistake detection and rectification and the persistent challenges faced by smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T08:06:05Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• The Perils & Promises of Fact-checking with Large Language Models [55.869584426820715]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly trusted to write academic papers, lawsuits, and news articles. We evaluate the use of LLM agents in fact-checking by having them phrase queries, retrieve contextual data, and make decisions. Our results show the enhanced prowess of LLMs when equipped with contextual information. While LLMs show promise in fact-checking, caution is essential due to inconsistent accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T14:49:47Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
  We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [53.504471079548]
  We systematically investigate the impact of Retrieval-Augmented Generation on large language models. We analyze the performance of different large language models in 4 fundamental abilities required for RAG. We establish Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (RGB), a new corpus for RAG evaluation in both English and Chinese.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T08:28:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.