使用Human-in-the-Loop进行可扩展的事实核查

Jing Yang, D. Vega-Oliveros, Taís Seibt, Anderson Rocha
{"title":"使用Human-in-the-Loop进行可扩展的事实核查","authors":"Jing Yang, D. Vega-Oliveros, Taís Seibt, Anderson Rocha","doi":"10.1109/WIFS53200.2021.9648388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Researchers have been investigating automated solutions for fact-checking in various fronts. However, current approaches often overlook the fact that information released every day is escalating, and a large amount of them overlap. Intending to accelerate fact-checking, we bridge this gap by proposing a new pipeline – grouping similar messages and summarizing them into aggregated claims. Specifically, we first clean a set of social media posts (e.g., tweets) and build a graph of all posts based on their semantics; Then, we perform two clustering methods to group the messages for further claim summarization. We evaluate the summaries both quantitatively with ROUGE scores and qualitatively with human evaluation. We also generate a graph of summaries to verify that there is no significant overlap among them. The results reduced 28,818 original messages to 700 summary claims, showing the potential to speed up the fact-checking process by organizing and selecting representative claims from massive disorganized and redundant messages.","PeriodicalId":196985,"journal":{"name":"2021 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scalable Fact-checking with Human-in-the-Loop\",\"authors\":\"Jing Yang, D. Vega-Oliveros, Taís Seibt, Anderson Rocha\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/WIFS53200.2021.9648388\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Researchers have been investigating automated solutions for fact-checking in various fronts. However, current approaches often overlook the fact that information released every day is escalating, and a large amount of them overlap. Intending to accelerate fact-checking, we bridge this gap by proposing a new pipeline – grouping similar messages and summarizing them into aggregated claims. Specifically, we first clean a set of social media posts (e.g., tweets) and build a graph of all posts based on their semantics; Then, we perform two clustering methods to group the messages for further claim summarization. We evaluate the summaries both quantitatively with ROUGE scores and qualitatively with human evaluation. We also generate a graph of summaries to verify that there is no significant overlap among them. The results reduced 28,818 original messages to 700 summary claims, showing the potential to speed up the fact-checking process by organizing and selecting representative claims from massive disorganized and redundant messages.\",\"PeriodicalId\":196985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2021 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2021 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/WIFS53200.2021.9648388\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/WIFS53200.2021.9648388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

研究人员一直在研究各个方面的事实核查自动化解决方案。然而,目前的方法往往忽略了这样一个事实,即每天发布的信息都在不断升级,而且大量信息重叠。为了加速事实核查,我们提出了一种新的渠道来弥补这一差距——将类似的信息分组,并将它们汇总为汇总的声明。具体来说,我们首先清理一组社交媒体帖子(例如推文),并根据其语义构建所有帖子的图;然后,我们使用两种聚类方法对消息进行分组,以便进行进一步的索赔汇总。我们用ROUGE评分定量地评价总结,用人的评价定性地评价总结。我们还生成了一个总结图,以验证它们之间没有明显的重叠。结果将28,818条原始信息减少到700条摘要索赔,显示出通过从大量杂乱无章和冗余的信息中组织和选择具有代表性的索赔来加快事实核查过程的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scalable Fact-checking with Human-in-the-Loop
Researchers have been investigating automated solutions for fact-checking in various fronts. However, current approaches often overlook the fact that information released every day is escalating, and a large amount of them overlap. Intending to accelerate fact-checking, we bridge this gap by proposing a new pipeline – grouping similar messages and summarizing them into aggregated claims. Specifically, we first clean a set of social media posts (e.g., tweets) and build a graph of all posts based on their semantics; Then, we perform two clustering methods to group the messages for further claim summarization. We evaluate the summaries both quantitatively with ROUGE scores and qualitatively with human evaluation. We also generate a graph of summaries to verify that there is no significant overlap among them. The results reduced 28,818 original messages to 700 summary claims, showing the potential to speed up the fact-checking process by organizing and selecting representative claims from massive disorganized and redundant messages.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CNN Steganalyzers Leverage Local Embedding Artifacts Unsupervised JPEG Domain Adaptation for Practical Digital Image Forensics 3D Print-Scan Resilient Localized Mesh Watermarking Secure Collaborative Editing Using Secret Sharing How are PDF files published in the Scientific Community?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1