TL;DR
This survey reviews current methods for explainable automated fact-checking, emphasizing the importance of transparent reasoning in fact-checking systems and proposing future research directions to enhance explanation quality.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive overview of explanation techniques in automated fact-checking and analyzes their effectiveness against desirable explanation properties.
Findings
Existing explanation methods vary in quality and transparency.
Good explanations should be clear, faithful, and user-friendly.
Future research can improve explanation generation and evaluation.
Abstract
A number of exciting advances have been made in automated fact-checking thanks to increasingly larger datasets and more powerful systems, leading to improvements in the complexity of claims which can be accurately fact-checked. However, despite these advances, there are still desirable functionalities missing from the fact-checking pipeline. In this survey, we focus on the explanation functionality -- that is fact-checking systems providing reasons for their predictions. We summarize existing methods for explaining the predictions of fact-checking systems and we explore trends in this topic. Further, we consider what makes for good explanations in this specific domain through a comparative analysis of existing fact-checking explanations against some desirable properties. Finally, we propose further research directions for generating fact-checking explanations, and describe how these may…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
