Show Me the Work: Fact-Checkers' Requirements for Explainable Automated Fact-Checking
Greta Warren, Irina Shklovski, Isabelle Augenstein

TL;DR
This paper explores fact-checkers' needs for explainable AI in automated fact-checking, revealing key criteria for effective explanations that support human decision-making and address current gaps.
Contribution
It provides empirical insights into fact-checkers' workflows and identifies essential explanation features for integrating AI tools effectively.
Findings
Fact-checkers need explanations that trace reasoning paths.
Explanations should reference specific evidence.
Highlighting uncertainty improves trust in AI outputs.
Abstract
The pervasiveness of large language models and generative AI in online media has amplified the need for effective automated fact-checking to assist fact-checkers in tackling the increasing volume and sophistication of misinformation. The complex nature of fact-checking demands that automated fact-checking systems provide explanations that enable fact-checkers to scrutinise their outputs. However, it is unclear how these explanations should align with the decision-making and reasoning processes of fact-checkers to be effectively integrated into their workflows. Through semi-structured interviews with fact-checking professionals, we bridge this gap by: (i) providing an account of how fact-checkers assess evidence, make decisions, and explain their processes; (ii) examining how fact-checkers use automated tools in practice; and (iii) identifying fact-checker explanation requirements for…
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.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsALIGN
