Fact Checking or Psycholinguistics: How to Distinguish Fake and True Claims?

A. Wawer, Grzegorz Wojdyga, Justyna Sarzyńska-Wawer
{"title":"Fact Checking or Psycholinguistics: How to Distinguish Fake and True Claims?","authors":"A. Wawer, Grzegorz Wojdyga, Justyna Sarzyńska-Wawer","doi":"10.18653/v1/D19-6602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The goal of our paper is to compare psycholinguistic text features with fact checking approaches to distinguish lies from true statements. We examine both methods using data from a large ongoing study on deception and deception detection covering a mixture of factual and opinionated topics that polarize public opinion. We conclude that fact checking approaches based on Wikipedia are too limited for this task, as only a few percent of sentences from our study has enough evidence to become supported or refuted. Psycholinguistic features turn out to outperform both fact checking and human baselines, but the accuracy is not high. Overall, it appears that deception detection applicable to less-than-obvious topics is a difficult task and a problem to be solved.","PeriodicalId":153447,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-6602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The goal of our paper is to compare psycholinguistic text features with fact checking approaches to distinguish lies from true statements. We examine both methods using data from a large ongoing study on deception and deception detection covering a mixture of factual and opinionated topics that polarize public opinion. We conclude that fact checking approaches based on Wikipedia are too limited for this task, as only a few percent of sentences from our study has enough evidence to become supported or refuted. Psycholinguistic features turn out to outperform both fact checking and human baselines, but the accuracy is not high. Overall, it appears that deception detection applicable to less-than-obvious topics is a difficult task and a problem to be solved.
事实检验或心理语言学:如何分辨真假?
本文的目的是比较心理语言学文本特征与事实检查方法,以区分谎言和真实陈述。我们使用一项正在进行的关于欺骗和欺骗检测的大型研究的数据来检验这两种方法,该研究涵盖了使公众舆论两极分化的事实和固执己见的主题。我们的结论是,基于维基百科的事实检查方法对于这项任务来说太有限了,因为我们研究中只有百分之几的句子有足够的证据来支持或反驳。心理语言学特征结果优于事实核查和人类基线,但准确性不高。总的来说,似乎欺骗检测适用于不太明显的主题是一项艰巨的任务和有待解决的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信