You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
We present an overview of the CLEF-2018 CheckThat! Lab on Automatic Identification and Verification of Political Claims, with focus on Task 1: Check-Worthiness. The task asks to predict which claims in a political debate should be prioritized for fact-checking. In particular, given a debate or a political speech, the goal was to produce a ranked list of its sentences based on their worthiness for fact checking. We offered the task in both English and Arabic, based on debates from the 2016 US Presidential Campaign, as well as on some speeches during and after the campaign. A total of 30 teams registered to participate in the Lab and seven teams actually submitted systems for Task 1. The most successful approaches used by the participants relied on recurrent and multi-layer neural networks, as well as on combinations of distributional representations, on matchings claims' vocabulary against lexicons, and on measures of syntactic dependency. The best systems achieved mean average precision of 0.18 and 0.15 on the English and on the Arabic test datasets, respectively. This leaves large room for further improvement, and thus we release all datasets and the scoring scripts, which should enable further research in check-worthiness estimation.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We present ClaimRank, an online system for detecting check-worthy claims. While originally trained on political debates, the system can work for any kind of text, e.g., interviews or regular news articles. Its aim is to facilitate manual fact-checking efforts by prioritizing the claims that fact-checkers should consider first. ClaimRank supports both Arabic and English, it is trained on actual annotations from nine reputable fact-checking organizations (PolitiFact, FactCheck, ABC, CNN, NPR, NYT, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and Washington Post), and thus it can mimic the claim selection strategies for each and any of them, as well as for the union of them all.

[2]: 

[3]: The web is a huge source of valuable information. However, in recent times, there is an increasing trend towards false claims in social media, other web-sources, and even in news. Thus, factchecking websites have become increasingly popular to identify such misinformation based on manual analysis. Recent research proposed methods to assess the credibility of claims automatically. However, there are major limitations: most works assume claims to be in a structured form, and a few deal with textual claims but require that sources of evidence or counter-evidence are easily retrieved from the web. None of these works can cope with newly emerging claims, and no prior method can give user-interpretable explanations for its verdict on the claim's credibility. This paper overcomes these limitations by automatically assessing the credibility of emerging claims, with sparse presence in web-sources, and generating suitable explanations from judiciously selected sources. To this end, we retrieve diverse articles about the claim, and model the mutual interaction between: the stance (i.e., support or refute) of the sources, the language style of the articles, the reliability of the sources, and the claim's temporal footprint on the web. Extensive experiments demonstrate the viability of our method and its superiority over prior works. We show that our methods work well for early detection of emerging claims, as well as for claims with limited presence on the web and social media.

[4]: We analyze the information credibility of news propagated through Twitter, a popular microblogging service. Previous research has shown that most of the messages posted on Twitter are truthful, but the service is also used to spread misinformation and false rumors, often unintentionally. On this paper we focus on automatic methods for assessing the credibility of a given set of tweets. Specifically, we analyze microblog postings related to "trending" topics, and classify them as credible or not credible, based on features extracted from them. We use features from users' posting and re-posting ("re-tweeting") behavior, from the text of the posts, and from citations to external sources. We evaluate our methods using a significant number of human assessments about the credibility of items on a recent sample of Twitter postings. Our results shows that there are measurable differences in the way messages propagate, that can be used to classify them automatically as credible or not credible, with precision and recall in the range of 70 to 80 .

[5]: Given the constantly growing proliferation of false claims online in recent years, there has been also a growing research interest in automatically distinguishing false rumors from factually true claims. Here, we propose a general-purpose framework for fully-automatic fact checking using external sources, tapping the potential of the entire Web as a knowledge source to confirm or reject a claim. Our framework uses a deep neural network with LSTM text encoding to combine semantic kernels with task-specific embeddings that encode a claim together with pieces of potentially-relevant text fragments from the Web, taking the source reliability into account. The evaluation results show good performance on two different tasks and datasets: (i) rumor detection and (ii) fact checking of the answers to a question in community question answering forums.

[6]: 

[7]: The volume of information generated online makes it impossible to manually fact-check all claims. Computational approaches for fact checking may be the key to help mitigate the risks of massive misinformation spread. Such approaches can be designed to not only be scalable and effective at assessing veracity of dubious claims, but also to boost a human fact checker's productivity by surfacing relevant facts and patterns to aid their analysis. We present a novel, unsupervised network-flow based approach to determine the truthfulness of a statement of fact expressed in the form of a triple. We view a knowledge graph of background information about real-world entities as a flow network, and show that computational fact checking then amounts to finding a "knowledge stream" connecting the subject and object of the triple. Evaluation on a range of real-world and hand-crafted datasets of facts reveals that this network-flow model can be very effective in discerning true statements from false ones, outperforming existing algorithms on many test cases. Moreover, the model is expressive in its ability to automatically discover several useful patterns and surface relevant facts that may help a human fact checker.

[8]: Public figures such as politicians make claims about "facts" all the time. Journalists and citizens spend a good amount of time checking the veracity of such claims. Toward automatic fact checking, we developed tools to find check-worthy factual claims from natural language sentences. Specifically, we prepared a U.S. presidential debate dataset and built classification models to distinguish check-worthy factual claims from non-factual claims and unimportant factual claims. We also identified the most-effective features based on their impact on the classification models' accuracy.

[9]:
Automatic fact-checking was envisioned in [4]7 as a multi-step process that includes () identifying check-worthy statements [2] [5]0 [1] , () generating questions to be asked about these statements [5] , () retrieving relevant information to create a knowledge base [4]5 , and () inferring the veracity of the statements, e.g., using text analysis [4] [6] or external sources [5] [3] .