Automatic fact-checking aims to support professional fact-checkers by offering tools that can help speed up manual fact-checking. Yet, existing frameworks fail to address the key step of producing output suitable for broader dissemination to the general public: while human fact-checkers communicate their findings through fact-checking articles, automated systems typically produce little or no justification for their assessments. Here, we aim to bridge this gap. We argue for the need to extend the typical automatic fact-checking pipeline with automatic generation of full fact-checking articles. We first identify key desiderata for such articles through a series of interviews with experts from leading fact-checking organizations. We then develop QRAFT, an LLM-based agentic framework that mimics the writing workflow of human fact-checkers. Finally, we assess the practical usefulness of QRAFT through human evaluations with professional fact-checkers. Our evaluation shows that while QRAFT outperforms several previously proposed text-generation approaches, it lags considerably behind expert-written articles. We hope that our work will enable further research in this new and important direction.

Fact-checking long-form text is challenging, and it is therefore common practice to break it down into multiple atomic claims. The typical approach to fact-checking these atomic claims involves retrieving a fixed number of pieces of evidence, followed by a verification step. However, this method is usually not cost-effective, as it underutilizes the verification model's internal knowledge of the claim and fails to replicate the iterative reasoning process in human search strategies. To address these limitations, we propose FIRE, a novel agent-based framework that integrates evidence retrieval and claim verification in an iterative manner. Specifically, FIRE employs a unified mechanism to decide whether to provide a final answer or generate a subsequent search query, based on its confidence in the current judgment. We compare FIRE with other strong fact-checking frameworks and find that it achieves slightly better performance while reducing large language model (LLM) costs by an average of 7.6 times and search costs by 16.5 times. These results indicate that FIRE holds promise for application in large-scale fact-checking operations. Our code is available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/fire.git.

Recent years have witnessed a swelling rise of hateful and abusive content over online social networks. While detection and moderation of hate speech have been the early go-to countermeasures, the solution requires a deeper exploration of the dynamics of hate generation and propagation. We analyze more than 32 million posts from over 6.8 million users across three popular online social networks to investigate the interrelations between hateful behavior, information dissemination, and polarised organization mediated by echo chambers. We find that hatemongers play a more crucial role in governing the spread of information compared to singled-out hateful content. This observation holds for both the growth of information cascades as well as the conglomeration of hateful actors. Dissection of the core-wise distribution of these networks points towards the fact that hateful users acquire a more well-connected position in the social network and often flock together to build up information cascades. We observe that this cohesion is far from mere organized behavior; instead, in these networks, hatemongers dominate the echo chambers -- groups of users actively align themselves to specific ideological positions. The observed dominance of hateful users to inflate information cascades is primarily via user interactions amplified within these echo chambers. We conclude our study with a cautionary note that popularity-based recommendation of content is susceptible to be exploited by hatemongers given their potential to escalate content popularity via echo-chambered interactions.