Taylor Lynn Curtis

James Zhou

Florence Laflamme

Yuxiang Guan

Misinformation is a complex societal issue, and mitigating solutions are difficult to create due to data deficiencies. To address this probl… (see more)em, we have curated the largest collection of (mis)information datasets in the literature, totaling 75. From these, we evaluated the quality of all of the 36 datasets that consist of statements or claims, as well as the 9 datasets that consists of data in purely paragraph form. We assess these datasets to identify those with solid foundations for empirical work and those with flaws that could result in misleading and non-generalizable results, such as insufficient label quality, spurious correlations. We further provide state-of-the-art baselines on all these datasets, but show that regardless of label quality, categorical labels may no longer give an accurate evaluation of detection model performance. We discuss alternatives to mitigate this problem. Overall, this guide aims to provide a roadmap for obtaining higher quality data and conducting more effective evaluations, ultimately improving research in misinformation detection. All datasets and other artifacts are available at [anonymized].

2025-08-03

Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 (published)

openreview.net

A Guide to Misinformation Detection Data and Evaluation

Camille Thibault

Jacob-Junqi Tian

Gabrielle Péloquin-Skulski

James Zhou

Florence Laflamme

Luke Yuxiang Guan

2025-08-03

Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 (published)

Veracity: An Open-Source AI Fact-Checking System

Maximilian Puelma Touzel

William Garneau

Manon Gruaz

Mike Pinder

Li Wei Wang

Sukanya Krishna

Luda Cohen

The proliferation of misinformation poses a significant threat to society, exacerbated by the capabilities of generative AI. This demo paper… (see more) introduces Veracity, an open-source AI system designed to empower individuals to combat misinformation through transparent and accessible fact-checking. Veracity leverages the synergy between Large Language Models (LLMs) and web retrieval agents to analyze user-submitted claims and provide grounded veracity assessments with intuitive explanations. Key features include multilingual support, numerical scoring of claim veracity, and an interactive interface inspired by familiar messaging applications. This paper will showcase Veracity's ability to not only detect misinformation but also explain its reasoning, fostering media literacy and promoting a more informed society.

2025-06-19

ArXiv (preprint)

Veracity: An Open-Source AI Fact-Checking System

Maximilian Puelma Touzel

William Garneau

Manon Gruaz

Mike Pinder

Li Wei Wang

Sukanya Krishna

Luda Cohen

The proliferation of misinformation poses a significant threat to society, exacerbated by the capabilities of generative AI. This demo paper… (see more) introduces Veracity, an open-source AI system designed to empower individuals to combat misinformation through transparent and accessible fact-checking. Veracity leverages the synergy between Large Language Models (LLMs) and web retrieval agents to analyze user-submitted claims and provide grounded veracity assessments with intuitive explanations. Key features include multilingual support, numerical scoring of claim veracity, and an interactive interface inspired by familiar messaging applications. This paper will showcase Veracity's ability to not only detect misinformation but also explain its reasoning, fostering media literacy and promoting a more informed society.

2025-06-18

ArXiv (preprint)

A Guide to Misinformation Detection Data and Evaluation

Camille Thibault

Jacob-Junqi Tian

Gabrielle Péloquin-Skulski

James Zhou

Florence Laflamme

Yuxiang Guan

2024-11-07

ArXiv (preprint)

Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits

Stephen Casper

Carson Ezell

Charlotte Siegmann

Noam Kolt

Benjamin Bucknall

Andreas Haupt

Kevin Wei

Jérémy Scheurer

Marius Hobbhahn

Lee Sharkey

Satyapriya Krishna

Marvin Von Hagen

Silas Alberti

Qinyi Sun

Michael Gerovitch

David Bau

Max Tegmark

Dylan Hadfield-Menell

External audits of AI systems are increasingly recognized as a key mechanism for AI governance. The effectiveness of an audit, however, depe… (see more)nds on the degree of system access granted to auditors. Recent audits of state-of-the-art AI systems have primarily relied on black-box access, in which auditors can only query the system and observe its outputs. However, white-box access to the system's inner workings (e.g., weights, activations, gradients) allows an auditor to perform stronger attacks, more thoroughly interpret models, and conduct fine-tuning. Meanwhile, outside-the-box access to its training and deployment information (e.g., methodology, code, documentation, hyperparameters, data, deployment details, findings from internal evaluations) allows for auditors to scrutinize the development process and design more targeted evaluations. In this paper, we examine the limitations of black-box audits and the advantages of white- and outside-the-box audits. We also discuss technical, physical, and legal safeguards for performing these audits with minimal security risks. Given that different forms of access can lead to very different levels of evaluation, we conclude that (1) transparency regarding the access and methods used by auditors is necessary to properly interpret audit results, and (2) white- and outside-the-box access allow for substantially more scrutiny than black-box access alone.

2024-06-05

The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (published)

Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits

Stephen Casper

Carson Ezell

Charlotte Siegmann

Noam Kolt

Benjamin Bucknall

Andreas Haupt

Kevin Wei

Jérémy Scheurer

Marius Hobbhahn

Lee Sharkey

Satyapriya Krishna

Marvin Von Hagen

Silas Alberti

Qinyi Sun

Michael Gerovitch

David Bau

Max Tegmark

Dylan Hadfield-Menell

External audits of AI systems are increasingly recognized as a key mechanism for AI governance. The effectiveness of an audit, however, depe… (see more)nds on the degree of access granted to auditors. Recent audits of state-of-the-art AI systems have primarily relied on black-box access, in which auditors can only query the system and observe its outputs. However, white-box access to the system’s inner workings (e.g., weights, activations, gradients) allows an auditor to perform stronger attacks, more thoroughly interpret models, and conduct fine-tuning. Meanwhile, outside-the-box access to training and deployment information (e.g., methodology, code, documentation, data, deployment details, findings from internal evaluations) allows auditors to scrutinize the development process and design more targeted evaluations. In this paper, we examine the limitations of black-box audits and the advantages of white- and outside-the-box audits. We also discuss technical, physical, and legal safeguards for performing these audits with minimal security risks. Given that different forms of access can lead to very different levels of evaluation, we conclude that (1) transparency regarding the access and methods used by auditors is necessary to properly interpret audit results, and (2) white- and outside-the-box access allow for substantially more scrutiny than black-box access alone.

2024-01-25

ArXiv (preprint)

Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits

Stephen Casper

Carson Ezell

Charlotte Siegmann

Noam Kolt

Benjamin Bucknall

Andreas Haupt

Kevin Wei

Jérémy Scheurer

Marius Hobbhahn

Lee Sharkey

Satyapriya Krishna

Marvin Von Hagen

Silas Alberti

Qinyi Sun

Michael Gerovitch

David Bau

Max Tegmark

Dylan Hadfield-Menell

External audits of AI systems are increasingly recognized as a key mechanism for AI governance. The effectiveness of an audit, however, depe… (see more)nds on the degree of access granted to auditors. Recent audits of state-of-the-art AI systems have primarily relied on black-box access, in which auditors can only query the system and observe its outputs. However, white-box access to the system’s inner workings (e.g., weights, activations, gradients) allows an auditor to perform stronger attacks, more thoroughly interpret models, and conduct fine-tuning. Meanwhile, outside-the-box access to training and deployment information (e.g., methodology, code, documentation, data, deployment details, findings from internal evaluations) allows auditors to scrutinize the development process and design more targeted evaluations. In this paper, we examine the limitations of black-box audits and the advantages of white- and outside-the-box audits. We also discuss technical, physical, and legal safeguards for performing these audits with minimal security risks. Given that different forms of access can lead to very different levels of evaluation, we conclude that (1) transparency regarding the access and methods used by auditors is necessary to properly interpret audit results, and (2) white- and outside-the-box access allow for substantially more scrutiny than black-box access alone.

2024-01-25

ArXiv (preprint)

Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits

Stephen Casper

Carson Ezell

Charlotte Siegmann

Noam Kolt

Benjamin Bucknall

Andreas Haupt

Kevin Wei

Jérémy Scheurer

Marius Hobbhahn

Lee Sharkey

Satyapriya Krishna

Marvin Von Hagen

Silas Alberti

Qinyi Sun

Michael Gerovitch

David Bau

Max Tegmark

Dylan Hadfield-Menell

External audits of AI systems are increasingly recognized as a key mechanism for AI governance. The effectiveness of an audit, however, depe… (see more)nds on the degree of access granted to auditors. Recent audits of state-of-the-art AI systems have primarily relied on black-box access, in which auditors can only query the system and observe its outputs. However, white-box access to the system’s inner workings (e.g., weights, activations, gradients) allows an auditor to perform stronger attacks, more thoroughly interpret models, and conduct fine-tuning. Meanwhile, outside-the-box access to training and deployment information (e.g., methodology, code, documentation, data, deployment details, findings from internal evaluations) allows auditors to scrutinize the development process and design more targeted evaluations. In this paper, we examine the limitations of black-box audits and the advantages of white- and outside-the-box audits. We also discuss technical, physical, and legal safeguards for performing these audits with minimal security risks. Given that different forms of access can lead to very different levels of evaluation, we conclude that (1) transparency regarding the access and methods used by auditors is necessary to properly interpret audit results, and (2) white- and outside-the-box access allow for substantially more scrutiny than black-box access alone.

2024-01-25

ArXiv (preprint)