Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2306.17176

News Verifiers Showdown: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Bing AI, and Bard in News Fact-Checking

Kevin Matthe Caramancion
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the proficiency of prominent Large Language Models (LLMs), namely OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0, Google's Bard(LaMDA), and Microsoft's Bing AI in discerning the truthfulness of news items using black box testing. A total of 100 fact-checked news items, all sourced from independent fact-checking agencies, were presented to each of these LLMs under controlled conditions. Their responses were classified into one of three categories: True, False, and Partially True/False. The effectiveness of the LLMs was gauged based on the accuracy of their classifications against the verified facts provided by the independent agencies. The results showed a moderate proficiency across all models, with an average score of 65.25 out of 100. Among the models, OpenAI's GPT-4.0 stood out with a score of 71, suggesting an edge in newer LLMs' abilities to differentiate fact from deception. However, when juxtaposed against the performance of human fact-checkers, the AI models, despite showing promise, lag in comprehending the subtleties and contexts inherent in news information. The findings highlight the potential of AI in the domain of fact-checking while underscoring the continued importance of human cognitive skills and the necessity for persistent advancements in AI capabilities. Finally, the experimental data produced from the simulation of this work is openly available on Kaggle.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AIcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kevin Matthe Caramancion. 2023-06-18. News Verifiers Showdown: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Bing AI, and Bard in News Fact-Checking. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17176

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MultiViewDx: Evidence-Linked Multi-View Clinical Diagnosis

Medical multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can perform well on existing medical visual question answering (MedVQA) benchmarks, but their training data often does not match clinical diagnosis. Most supervision is organized around isolated images or short QA pairs, leaving two structures weakly specified: how evidence leads to a decision, and how views, series, modalities, and patient context from the same case are linked. We introduce MultiViewDx, a partly physician-validated multimodal instruction dataset for evidence-linked multi-view medical imaging diagnosis. MultiViewDx uses the clinical case as the supervision unit. It links imaging studies with patient context, normalizes heterogeneous reports into an evidence-linked workflow (evidence -> findings -> differential discussion -> diagnosis), and uses a unified image-text retriever to constrain instruction synthesis to source-supported evidence. It covers X-ray, CT, MRI, ultrasound, histopathology, and other clinical visual sources. We fine-tune MultiViewDx-8B-AN and evaluate it on both existing MedVQA benchmarks and real-world case-based diagnostic reasoning. Across four MedVQA benchmarks, it achieves the best average accuracy among compared systems (79.0%), outperforming HuatuoGPT-Vision-34B (66.7%) and Claude3-Opus (55.7%). Beyond MedVQA, on JAMA Clinical Challenge cases, it receives the strongest overall rating under a physician-designed rubric for key clinical points, diagnostic inference, and evidence grounding. Controlled ablations and clinician evaluation show that both case-level multi-view organization and evidence-linked reasoning targets contribute to the gain.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Foundations of Large Language Models

This is a book about large language models. As indicated by the title, it primarily focuses on foundational concepts rather than comprehensive coverage of all cutting-edge technologies. The book is structured into six main chapters, each exploring a key area: pre-training, generative models, prompting, alignment, inference, and reasoning. It is intended for college students, professionals, and practitioners in natural language processing and related fields, and can serve as a reference for anyone interested in large language models.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Interactive In-Meeting Speaker Correction with Human Feedback

Most automatic speech processing systems operate in ``open loop'' mode without user feedback about who said what, yet human-in-the-loop workflows can potentially enable higher accuracy. We propose an LLM-assisted in-meeting speaker correction system that lets users fix speaker attribution errors through brief corrective feedback. After performing streaming ASR and diarization, the system presents concise LLM-generated summaries to help users identify important speaker errors, and it incorporates user feedback by updating the speaker-attributed transcript and adding online speaker enrollments. To make this workflow effective despite errors in speech processing, LLM analysis, and user feedback, we developed several mechanisms to identify the intended correction more precisely. Further, we built an LLM-driven user feedback simulation to evaluate the workflow reprodubilty and at scale. Applied to the AMI headset test set, our system substantially reduces the DER from a streaming baseline (Google ASR + ECAPA) by 31.99% and speaker substitution error by 52.68%. Results of a pilot usability study suggest several avenues to improve the user experience.

cs.CL↗