arXiv AI

An Explainable Coherence Score for Detecting Temporal Inconsistencies in Political News

The paper presents the Temporal Coherence Score (TCS), a continuous, interpretable metric for detecting temporal inconsistencies in political news. TCS is computed through a four‑stage pipeline that extracts temporal facts, builds a temporal knowledge graph, verifies consistency using internal rules and external references, and aggregates scores with explanations. On a benchmark of 100 political articles with injected errors, TCS achieves 0.909 precision, providing detailed explanations for each flagged inconsistency.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

ReliableRAG: Combating Misinformation in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Reliability-Guided Reasoning Chains

ReliableRAG is a new framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation that tackles misinformation in multi‑hop question answering. It extracts structured triples from retrieved documents, evaluates each triple’s reliability by combining semantic relevance to the query with credibility, and keeps only the top‑K reliable, non‑redundant triples. Using these refined triples, the system builds robust reasoning chains that filter out deceptive misinformation and produce accurate, trustworthy answers.

By Jinpu Jiang, Xuan Wu, Wenhao Song, Bo Yang, You Zhou, Hongwei Ge, Heow Pueh Lee, Yanchun Liang, Chunguo Wu
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 20

BERTilda: Explainable Topic Lifecycle Tracking with Split/Merge Detection via Similarity-and-Flow Temporal Graphs

BERTilda is an explainable framework for tracking topic lifecycles in longitudinal text streams. It discovers topics independently in each time window using an embedding‑based topic model, then links topics across adjacent windows via a temporal graph that uses both semantic similarity and a bidirectional coverage signal derived from tweet‑to‑topic attribution. The graph‑based rules identify continuations, splits, merges, disappearances, and unclear transitions, and the method achieves up to 87% agreement with human annotators on a gold‑standard subset.

By Cl\'audia Oliveira, \'Alvaro Figueira
arXiv Computation and Language
5d ago

An Empirical Analysis of Factual Errors in Human-Written Text and Its Application to Factual Error Detection

The paper presents an empirical study of factual errors in human-written text, focusing on corrections in newspaper articles to build a taxonomy of common mistakes such as kanji misconversions and unit errors. It evaluates large language models’ ability to detect these errors, finding that even advanced models like GPT‑5.4 achieve only a 52% word‑level F1 score on synthetic data, underscoring the difficulty of the task. The work highlights the gap in research on factual error detection in human writing compared to LLM hallucinations.

By Kazuma Iwamoto, Kazumasa Omura, Shotaro Ishihara
arXiv Computation and Language
2d ago

FakeSpotter: A content and strategy agnostic Viral Misinformation Detection Tool

FakeSpotter is a new tool that estimates the viral misinformation risk of textual content by measuring structural fingerprints of misinformation instead of directly judging truthfulness. It operates across linguistic, narrative, logical, and critical‑thinking dimensions, using repeated large language model assessments and domain‑specific logistic regression classifiers for both short and long texts. In a labeled corpus of 764 texts, FakeSpotter achieved macro F1 scores of 0.788 for short texts and 0.793 for long texts, and its interpretive layer offers explainable outputs such as feature‑based scores, signal agreement, and a caution index for social listening.

By Giovanni Spitale, Federico Germani
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Evaluating and Improving Evidence-Grounded Fact-Checking in LLMs via Multi-Round Evidence Ablation

The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.

By Xingyu Deng, Mingzi Cao, Nikolaos Aletras, Xi Wang, Mark Stevenson