Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Marcus Kornmann
dblp:427/0159
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Information extraction and text analysis · 56% Trustworthy machine learning · 44% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › fact-checking
automated fact-checking |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | VeriTaS: The First Dynamic Benchmark for Multimodal Automated Fact-Checking · ACL (1) 2026 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
dynamic benchmark |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | VeriTaS: The First Dynamic Benchmark for Multimodal Automated Fact-Checking · ACL (1) 2026 |
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis › fact-checking
multimodal fact-checking |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | VeriTaS: The First Dynamic Benchmark for Multimodal Automated Fact-Checking · ACL (1) 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
large language model · 1.0automated annotation pipeline · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | VeriTaS: The First Dynamic Benchmark for Multimodal Automated Fact-CheckingabstractThe growing scale of online misinformation urgently demands Automated Fact-Checking (AFC). Existing benchmarks for evaluating AFC systems, however, are largely limited in terms of task scope, modalities, domain, language diversity, realism, or coverage of misinformation types. Critically, they are static, thus subject to data leakage as their claims enter the pretraining corpora of LLMs. As a result, benchmark performance no longer reliably reflects the actual ability to verify claims.We introduce Verified Theses and Statements (VeriTaS), the first dynamic benchmark for multimodal AFC, designed to remain robust under ongoing large-scale pretraining of foundation models. VeriTaS currently comprises 25,000 real-world claims from 104 professional fact-checking organizations across 54 languages, covering textual and audiovisual content. Claims are added quarterly via a fully automated seven-stage pipeline that normalizes claim formulation, retrieves original media, and maps heterogeneous expert verdicts to a novel, standardized, and disentangled scoring scheme with textual justifications.Through human evaluation, we demonstrate that the automated annotations closely match human judgments.We commit to updating VeriTaS in the future, establishing a leakage-resistant benchmark, supporting meaningful AFC evaluation in the era of rapidly evolving foundation models.The code and data are publicly available under https://veritas.mai.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de. Mark Rothermel, Marcus Kornmann, Marcus Rohrbach, Anna Rohrbach |
ACL (1) | 2 |