fact-checking organizations

Abstract: Generative content is increasingly entering the production and dissemination of news, transforming fake news from manually fabricated or simply manipulated material into complex forms in which native and generated content jointly participate. Existing multimodal fake news detection research primarily focuses on veracity assessment and rarely characterizes how generativity differences affect the reliability of evidence. In contrast, AIGC detection primarily determines whether content is generated or modified by generative models, but it does not by itself establish whether the underlying news event is true. To bridge the separation between these tasks in data and evaluation, we construct Weibo26, a multimodal fake news detection dataset for generative-content scenarios. On this basis, we propose the Generativity-Aware Hierarchical Reasoning (GAHR) framework, which combines global judgment with local correction so that generativity information participates in news-veracity reasoning. Experiments on multiple existing fake news detection benchmarks and Weibo26 show that GAHR achieves competitive veracity-detection performance while effectively identifying generative content.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have made misinformation inexpensive to produce but not to verify, creating a growing asymmetry in the information ecosystem. Under tight time, labor, and budget constraints, media organizations, platforms, and fact-checkers rely on screening to prioritize which content to verify. We introduce VEX-Bench, a unified benchmark for evaluating the verification complexity of LLM-generated misinformation, as perceived during screening, across models and generation methods. Verification complexity is assessed along multiple dimensions derived from journalistic and fact-checking practices, capturing checkability, harm potential, source credibility signals, imposter legitimacy, and expected verification effort. We define the VEX score as an integrated measure combining elicitation yield and verification complexity to quantify how generated content consumes limited verification capacity. We construct a benchmark spanning two misinformation categories, 6 high-stakes domains, and 60 real-world topics, and evaluate 7 frontier LLMs and 7 generation methods, yielding 5{,}880 articles. We employ an LLM-as-judge for scalable evaluation and validate it using content-analysis methodology, including ordinal Krippendorff $α$ for inter-annotator reliability, complemented by fact-checking agents for verification. Our findings show that no single method dominates all dimensions, underscoring the need for multi-dimensional evaluation. LLMs can generate high-VEX misinformation at 3$\times$ to 169$\times$ lower cost than agent-based verification. Such content is often prioritized during screening, consuming scarce verification resources and introducing a systematic risk of misallocation in resource-constrained verification systems. The code is publicly available in our \href{https://github.com/HanxunH/VEX-Bench}{GitHub repository}.

Abstract: Self-play proposer--solver methods improve reasoning by generating tasks and learning from verified solutions. However, for evidence-identifiable tasks, where case-specific evidence and domain knowledge determine a checkable answer, self-play requires generating plausible cases whose answers can be independently verified. We introduce counterfactual self-evolution, which generates counterfactual context for reconsidering the original case. A trainable Proposer constructs targeted evidence edits and describes potential outcome changes with causal explanations. We handcraft an expert-verified counterfactual instruction-tuning dataset to teach the Proposer to generate high-quality counterfactuals across a broad range of action--outcome scenarios. Each counterfactual instruction-tuning example specifies an edit within a defined category and explains its hypothesized causal effect on the decision, teaching the Proposer to reason systematically about what changes and why. We instruction-tune the Proposer on these examples, then formulate a fine-tuning reward that integrates feedback from the Solver and Verifier. Across diverse counterfactual scenarios, this reward favors high-quality counterfactuals and warranted revisions, while penalizing changes that overturn correct decisions. The counterfactual context aims to correct errors and strengthen confidence in correct decisions. Accepted counterfactuals accumulate in memory that supplies in-context evidence to the frozen Solver; the Solver adapts through evolving context rather than weight updates. We apply the framework to clinical reasoning, fact verification, and business reasoning. Our evaluation tracks performance over successive rounds as counterfactual memory grows, including transfer to harder cases. Our method achieves superior results across diverse frontier models.

Abstract: Recent advances in large language models have transformed human-computer interaction. Despite their fluency, these models often produce texts that are grammatically correct but semantically incoherent, containing contradictions or disruptions in logical flow. This work investigates whether enriching text with syntactic and rhetorical information can improve incoherence prediction. Our experiments and analysis show that plain texts achieved higher accuracy because the added information was structurally and syntactically incompatible with the language model's architecture. Additionally, to demonstrate the practical importance of coherence assessment, we performed zero-shot experiments on a Brazilian disinformation dataset, suggesting that textual coherence can serve as a proxy for detecting misleading content. Code and models are available at https://github.com/ittozzamV/cohereclassifier.