<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
	<record>
		<datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">CONF</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="970" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">vanderMeer_ACL2025_2025/IDIAP</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">HintsOfTruth: A Multimodal Checkworthiness Detection Dataset with Real and Synthetic Claims</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">van der Meer, Michiel</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">Korshunov, Pavel</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">Marcel, Sébastien</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">van der Plas, Lonneke</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
			<subfield code="i">EXTERNAL</subfield>
			<subfield code="u">http://publications.idiap.ch/attachments/papers/2025/vanderMeer_ACL2025_2025.pdf</subfield>
			<subfield code="x">PUBLIC</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="711" ind1="2" ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="c">2025</subfield>
		</datafield>
		<datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
			<subfield code="a">Misinformation can be countered with fact-checking, but the process is costly and slow. Identifying checkworthy claims is the first step, where automation can help scale fact-checkers’ efforts. However, detection methods struggle with content that is (1) multimodal, (2) from diverse domains, and (3) synthetic. We introduce HINTSOFTRUTH, a public dataset for multimodal checkworthiness detection with 27K real-world and synthetic image/claim pairs. The mix of real and synthetic data makes this dataset unique and ideal for benchmarking detection methods. We compare fine-tuned and prompted Large Language Models (LLMs). We find that well-configured lightweight text-based encoders perform comparably to multimodal models but the former only focus on identifying non-claim-like content. Multimodal LLMs can be more accurate but come at a significant computational cost, making them impractical for large-scale applications. When faced with synthetic data, multimodal models perform more robustly.</subfield>
		</datafield>
	</record>
</collection>