Towards Automated Fact-Checking of Real-World Claims: Exploring Task Formulation and Assessment with LLMs

Fact-checking is necessary to address the increasing volume of misinformation. Traditional fact-checking relies on manual analysis to verify claims, but it is slow and resource-intensive. This study establishes baseline comparisons for Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) using Large Language Models (LLMs) across multiple labeling schemes (binary, three-class, five-class) and extends traditional claim verification by incorporating analysis, verdict classification, and explanation in a structured setup to provide comprehensive justifications for real-world claims. We evaluate Llama-3 models of varying sizes (3B, 8B, 70B) on 17,856 claims collected from PolitiFact (2007-2024) using evidence retrieved via restricted web searches. We utilize TIGERScore as a reference-free evaluation metric to score the justifications. Our results show that larger LLMs consistently outperform smaller LLMs in classification accuracy and justification quality without fine-tuning. We find that smaller LLMs in a one-shot scenario provide comparable task performance to fine-tuned Small Language Models (SLMs) with large context sizes, while larger LLMs consistently surpass them. Evidence integration improves performance across all models, with larger LLMs benefiting most. Distinguishing between nuanced labels remains challenging, emphasizing the need for further exploration of labeling schemes and alignment with evidences. Our findings demonstrate the potential of retrieval-augmented AFC with LLMs.

Towards an Argument Mining Pipeline Transforming Texts to Argument Graphs

This paper targets the automated extraction of components of argumentative information and their relations from natural language text. Moreover, we address a current lack of systems to provide complete argumentative structure from arbitrary natural language text for general usage. We present an argument mining pipeline as a universally applicable approach for transforming German and English language texts to graph-based argument representations. We also introduce new methods for evaluating the results based on existing benchmark argument structures. Our results show that the generated argument graphs can be beneficial to detect new connections between different statements of an argumentative text. Our pipeline implementation is publicly available on GitHub.

Same Side Stance Classification Task: Facilitating Argument Stance Classification by Fine-tuning a BERT Model

Research on computational argumentation is currently being intensively investigated. The goal of this community is to find the best pro and con arguments for a user given topic either to form an opinion for oneself, or to persuade others to adopt a certain standpoint. While existing argument mining methods can find appropriate arguments for a topic, a correct classification into pro and con is not yet reliable. The same side stance classification task provides a dataset of argument pairs classified by whether or not both arguments share the same stance and does not need to distinguish between topic-specific pro and con vocabulary but only the argument similarity within a stance needs to be assessed. The results of our contribution to the task are build on a setup based on the BERT architecture. We fine-tuned a pre-trained BERT model for three epochs and used the first 512 tokens of each argument to predict if two arguments share the same stance.