<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.09000/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.09000/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers — mentioned by Xudong</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39954536</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2311.09000:39954536</guid><pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2024 18:54:24 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, they are similar. Actually, our initial paper was presented around five months ago (https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09000). Unfortunately, our paper isn&amp;#x27;t cited by the DeepMind paper, which you may see this discussion as an example: https://x.com/gregd_nlp/status/1773453723655696431 Compared with our initial version, we have mainly focused on its efficiency, with a 10X faster checking process without decreasing accuracy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2311.09000/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
