Facts are Harder Than Opinions -- A Multilingual, Comparative Analysis of LLM-Based Fact-Checking Reliability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The proliferation of misinformation necessitates scalable, automated fact-checking solutions. Yet, current benchmarks often overlook multilingual and topical diversity. This paper introduces a novel, dynamically extensible data set that includes 61,514 claims in multiple languages and topics, extending existing datasets up to 2024. Through a comprehensive evaluation of five prominent Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, GPT-3.5 Turbo, LLaMA 3.1, and Mixtral 8x7B, we identify significant performance gaps between different languages and topics. While overall GPT-4o achieves the highest accuracy, it declines to classify 43% of claims. Across all models, factual-sounding claims are misclassified more often than opinions, revealing a key vulnerability. These findings underscore the need for caution and highlight challenges in deploying LLM-based fact-checking systems at scale.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2025.
Builds on
28 of 52 references.
References · 28
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
- 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,375
- 2020The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP Worldcited by 798
- 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
- 2021A Survey on Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 378
- 2017"Liar, Liar Pants on Fire": A New Benchmark Dataset for Fake News Detectioncited by 363
- 2023Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?cited by 250
- 2021Get Your Vitamin C! Robust Fact Verification with Contrastive Evidencecited by 225
- 2022Demystifying Prompts in Language Models via Perplexity Estimationcited by 216
- 2020Explainable Automated Fact-Checking for Public Health Claimscited by 211
- 2019MultiFC: A Real-World Multi-Domain Dataset for Evidence-Based Fact Checking of Claimscited by 169
16 more
- 2019Towards Debiasing Fact Verification Modelscited by 143
- 2018DeClarE: Debunking Fake News and False Claims using Evidence-Aware Deep Learningcited by 100
- 2021X-FACT: A New Benchmark Dataset for Multilingual Fact Checkingcited by 91
- 2020Mind the Trade-off: Debiasing NLU Models without Degrading the In-distribution Performancecited by 85
- 2020Explainable Automated Fact-Checking: A Surveycited by 83
- 2019A Richly Annotated Corpus for Different Tasks in Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 74
- 2020Language Models as Fact Checkers?cited by 51
- 2021Fool Me Twice: Entailment from Wikipedia Gamificationcited by 50
- 2023Towards Reliable Misinformation Mitigation: Generalization, Uncertainty, and GPT-4cited by 45
- 2023The language of prompting: What linguistic properties make a prompt successful?cited by 44
- 2023FactLLaMA: Optimizing Instruction-Following Language Models with External Knowledge for Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 37
- 2024Large Language Models Offer an Alternative to the Traditional Approach of Topic Modellingcited by 35
- 2023Fine-grained Affective Processing Capabilities Emerging from Large Language Modelscited by 24
- 2022From alternative conceptions of honesty to alternative facts in communications by U.S. politicianscited by 7
- 2023The Half-Life of a Tweetcited by 4
- 2025GenAI vs. Human Fact-Checkers: Accurate Ratings, Flawed Rationalescited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
3 papers.