Automated Fact Checking Using A Knowledge Graph-based Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Misinformation is a growing threat to the economy, social stability, public health, democracy, and national security. One of the most effective methods to combat misinformation is fact checking. Fact checking is the process of verifying the factual accuracy of a statement or claim. Fact checkers employ rigorous methodologies to scrutinize claims, verify sources, and expose falsehoods. However, the huge volume of content circulating online makes it challenging for humans to identify misinformation manually. Automated tools can analyze large datasets to detect patterns in misinformation content, scaling up fact checking efforts. This paper proposes a knowledge graph-based fact checking model that uses two separate knowledge graphs, one containing true claims and the other, false claims. The model uses knowledge graph embeddings which are based on convolutional neural networks. The deep learning model is trained on the above two knowledge graphs to learn distinguishing patterns between true and false claims. Additionally, we employ explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques to provide explanations for the model's classification, reducing cost of errors and increasing transparency and user trust in the system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".