H. Gong

Haisong Gong, Huanhuan Ma, Qiang Liu et al.

Claim verification is a task that involves assessing the truthfulness of a given claim based on multiple evidence pieces. Using large language models (LLMs) for claim verification is a promising way. However, simply feeding all the evidence pieces to an LLM and asking if the claim is factual does not yield good results. The challenge lies in the noisy nature of both the evidence and the claim: evidence passages typically contain irrelevant information, with the key facts hidden within the context, while claims often convey multiple aspects simultaneously. To navigate this "noisy crowd" of information, we propose EACon (Evidence Abstraction and Claim Deconstruction), a framework designed to find key information within evidence and verify each aspect of a claim separately. EACon first finds keywords from the claim and employs fuzzy matching to select relevant keywords for each raw evidence piece. These keywords serve as a guide to extract and summarize critical information into abstracted evidence. Subsequently, EACon deconstructs the original claim into subclaims, which are then verified against both abstracted and raw evidence individually. We evaluate EACon using two open-source LLMs on two challenging datasets. Results demonstrate that EACon consistently and substantially improve LLMs' performance in claim verification.

Mingqing Zhang, Haisong Gong, Qiang Liu et al.

The rapid spread of rumors on social media platforms during breaking events severely hinders the dissemination of the truth. Previous studies reveal that the lack of annotated resources hinders the direct detection of unforeseen breaking events not covered in yesterday's news. Leveraging large language models (LLMs) for rumor detection holds significant promise. However, it is challenging for LLMs to provide comprehensive responses to complex or controversial issues due to limited diversity. In this work, we propose the Stance Separated Multi-Agent Debate (S2MAD) to address this issue. Specifically, we firstly introduce Stance Separation, categorizing comments as either supporting or opposing the original claim. Subsequently, claims are classified as subjective or objective, enabling agents to generate reasonable initial viewpoints with different prompt strategies for each type of claim. Debaters then follow specific instructions through multiple rounds of debate to reach a consensus. If a consensus is not reached, a judge agent evaluates the opinions and delivers a final verdict on the claim's veracity. Extensive experiments conducted on two real-world datasets demonstrate that our proposed model outperforms state-of-the-art methods in terms of performance and effectively improves the performance of LLMs in breaking event rumor detection.