Anubrata Das

Anubrata Das, Houjiang Liu, Venelin Kovatchev et al.

Misinformation threatens modern society by promoting distrust in science, changing narratives in public health, heightening social polarization, and disrupting democratic elections and financial markets, among a myriad of other societal harms. To address this, a growing cadre of professional fact-checkers and journalists provide high-quality investigations into purported facts. However, these largely manual efforts have struggled to match the enormous scale of the problem. In response, a growing body of Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies have been proposed for more scalable fact-checking. Despite tremendous growth in such research, however, practical adoption of NLP technologies for fact-checking still remains in its infancy today. In this work, we review the capabilities and limitations of the current NLP technologies for fact-checking. Our particular focus is to further chart the design space for how these technologies can be harnessed and refined in order to better meet the needs of human fact-checkers. To do so, we review key aspects of NLP-based fact-checking: task formulation, dataset construction, modeling, and human-centered strategies, such as explainable models and human-in-the-loop approaches. Next, we review the efficacy of applying NLP-based fact-checking tools to assist human fact-checkers. We recommend that future research include collaboration with fact-checker stakeholders early on in NLP research, as well as incorporation of human-centered design practices in model development, in order to further guide technology development for human use and practical adoption. Finally, we advocate for more research on benchmark development supporting extrinsic evaluation of human-centered fact-checking technologies.

Houjiang Liu, Anubrata Das, Alexander Boltz et al.

While many Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques have been proposed for fact-checking, both academic research and fact-checking organizations report limited adoption of such NLP work due to poor alignment with fact-checker practices, values, and needs. To address this, we investigate a co-design method, Matchmaking for AI, to enable fact-checkers, designers, and NLP researchers to collaboratively identify what fact-checker needs should be addressed by technology, and to brainstorm ideas for potential solutions. Co-design sessions we conducted with 22 professional fact-checkers yielded a set of 11 design ideas that offer a "north star", integrating fact-checker criteria into novel NLP design concepts. These concepts range from pre-bunking misinformation, efficient and personalized monitoring misinformation, proactively reducing fact-checker potential biases, and collaborative writing fact-check reports. Our work provides new insights into both human-centered fact-checking research and practice and AI co-design research.

Li Shi, Nilavra Bhattacharya, Anubrata Das et al.

We conducted a lab-based eye-tracking study to investigate how the interactivity of an AI-powered fact-checking system affects user interactions, such as dwell time, attention, and mental resources involved in using the system. A within-subject experiment was conducted, where participants used an interactive and a non-interactive version of a mock AI fact-checking system and rated their perceived correctness of COVID-19 related claims. We collected web-page interactions, eye-tracking data, and mental workload using NASA-TLX. We found that the presence of the affordance of interactively manipulating the AI system's prediction parameters affected users' dwell times, and eye-fixations on AOIs, but not mental workload. In the interactive system, participants spent the most time evaluating claims' correctness, followed by reading news. This promising result shows a positive role of interactivity in a mixed-initiative AI-powered system.

Prakhar Singh, Anubrata Das, Junyi Jessy Li et al.

Fact-checking is the process of evaluating the veracity of claims (i.e., purported facts). In this opinion piece, we raise an issue that has received little attention in prior work -- that some claims are far more difficult to fact-check than others. We discuss the implications this has for both practical fact-checking and research on automated fact-checking, including task formulation and dataset design. We report a manual analysis undertaken to explore factors underlying varying claim difficulty and identify several distinct types of difficulty. We motivate this new claim difficulty prediction task as beneficial to both automated fact-checking and practical fact-checking organizations.

Anubrata Das, Matthew Lease

While search efficacy has been evaluated traditionally on the basis of result relevance, fairness of search has attracted recent attention. In this work, we define a notion of distributional fairness and provide a conceptual framework for evaluating search results based on it. As part of this, we formulate a set of axioms which an ideal evaluation framework should satisfy for distributional fairness. We show how existing TREC test collections can be repurposed to study fairness, and we measure potential data bias to inform test collection design for fair search. A set of analyses show metric divergence between relevance and fairness, and we describe a simple but flexible interpolation strategy for integrating relevance and fairness into a single metric for optimization and evaluation.