Neural Check-Worthiness Ranking with Weak Supervision: Finding Sentences for Fact-Checking
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automatic fact-checking systems detect misinformation, such as fake news, by (i) selecting check-worthy sentences for fact-checking, (ii) gathering related information to the sentences, and (iii) inferring the factuality of the sentences. Most prior research on (i) uses hand-crafted features to select check-worthy sentences, and does not explicitly account for the recent finding that the top weighted terms in both check-worthy and non-check-worthy sentences are actually overlapping [15]. Motivated by this, we present a neural check-worthiness sentence ranking model that represents each word in a sentence by textitboth its embedding (aiming to capture its semantics) and its syntactic dependencies (aiming to capture its role in modifying the semantics of other terms in the sentence). Our model is an end-to-end trainable neural network for check-worthiness ranking, which is trained on large amounts of unlabelled data through weak supervision. Thorough experimental evaluation against state of the art baselines, with and without weak supervision, shows our model to be superior at all times (+13% in MAP and +28% at various Precision cut-offs from the best baseline with statistical significance). Empirical analysis of the use of weak supervision, word embedding pretraining on domain-specific data, and the use of syntactic dependencies of our model reveals that check-worthy sentences contain notably more identical syntactic dependencies than non-check-worthy sentences.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 20 Mar 2019.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 3; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
9 papers.
- 2023Emotion Detection for Misinformation: A Reviewcited by 20
- 2021Overview of the CLEF-2019 CheckThat!: Automatic Identification and Verification of Claimscited by 18
- 2022Crowdsourced Fact-Checking at Twitter: How Does the Crowd Compare With Experts?cited by 16
- 2022Human-in-the-loop Evaluation for Early Misinformation Detection: A Case Study of COVID-19 Treatmentscited by 14
- 2021SciClops: Detecting and Contextualizing Scientific Claims for Assisting Manual Fact-Checkingcited by 8
- 2021Automatic Fake News Detection: Are Models Learning to Reason?cited by 7
- 2022Overview of the Shared Task on Fake News Detection in Urdu at FIRE 2021cited by 4
- 2024Ontology Enhanced Claim Detectioncited by 0
- 2025RAGAT-Mind: A Multi-Granular Modeling Approach for Rumor Detection Based on MindSporecited by 0
- 2025RAGAT-Mind: A Multi-Granular Modeling Approach for Rumor Detection Based on MindSpore24 Apr 2025
- 2024Ontology Enhanced Claim Detection19 Feb 2024
- 2023Emotion Detection for Misinformation: A Review1 Nov 2023
- 2022Human-in-the-loop Evaluation for Early Misinformation Detection: A Case Study of COVID-19 Treatments19 Dec 2022
- 2022Crowdsourced Fact-Checking at Twitter: How Does the Crowd Compare With Experts?19 Aug 2022
- 2022Overview of the Shared Task on Fake News Detection in Urdu at FIRE 202111 Jul 2022
- 2021SciClops: Detecting and Contextualizing Scientific Claims for Assisting Manual Fact-Checking25 Oct 2021
- 2021Overview of the CLEF-2019 CheckThat!: Automatic Identification and Verification of Claims25 Sep 2021
- 2021Automatic Fake News Detection: Are Models Learning to Reason?17 May 2021