Hongzhan Lin

This is an erratum for the article “A Graph-Enhanced Defense Framework for Explainable Fake News Detection with LLM” published in ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 44, 5, Article 112 (June 2026), 36 pages.

Explainable fake news detection aims to assess the veracity of news claims while providing human-friendly explanations. Existing methods incorporating investigative journalism are often inefficient and struggle with breaking news. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable leveraging externally retrieved reports as evidence for detection and explanation generation, but unverified reports may introduce inaccuracies. Moreover, effective explainable fake news detection should provide a comprehensible explanation for all aspects of a claim to assist the public in verifying its accuracy. To address these challenges, we propose a graph-enhanced defense framework (G-Defense) that provides fine-grained explanations based solely on unverified reports. Specifically, we construct a claim-centered graph by decomposing the news claim into several sub-claims and modeling their dependency relationships. For each sub-claim, we use the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technique to retrieve salient evidence and generate competing explanations. We then introduce a defense-like inference module based on the graph to assess the overall veracity. Finally, we prompt an LLM to generate an intuitive explanation graph. Experimental results demonstrate that G-Defense achieves state-of-the-art performance in both veracity detection and the quality of its explanations.

Identifying harmful memes is challenging due to their implicit meanings, which are not always evident from texts and images alone. Existing solutions often lack clear explanations to justify their decisions. To address this gap, we propose an explainable approach, ExplainHM++, which detects harmful memes by reasoning over competing rationales from both harmful and harmless perspectives. First, inspired by the capabilities of Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) in text generation and multimodal reasoning, we develop ExplainHM, a one-stage multimodal debate in which LMMs generate explanations through contradictory arguments. Second, we fine-tune a small language model to serve as a judge in the debate, improving the integration of harmfulness rationales with the multimodal content of memes. However, we observe that a naive multimodal debate remains vulnerable, as it heavily depends on the inherent reasoning ability of LMMs to understand the memes. Given the evolving and noisy nature of memes, we further introduce a meme sample retrieval mechanism and a retrieval-augmented debate paradigm to strengthen and refine LMM-generated explanations. Extensive experiments on three public meme datasets demonstrate that ExplainHM++ not only outperforms state-of-the-art methods but also provides superior, interpretable explanations for harmful meme detection.

The exponential growth of social media has profoundly transformed how information is created, disseminated, and absorbed, exceeding any precedent in the digital age. Regrettably, this explosion has also spawned a significant increase in the online abuse of memes. Evaluating the negative impact of memes is notably challenging, owing to their often subtle and implicit meanings, which are not directly conveyed through the overt text and image. In light of this, large multimodal models (LMMs) have emerged as a focal point of interest due to their remarkable capabilities in handling diverse multimodal tasks. In response to this development, our paper aims to thoroughly examine the capacity of various LMMs (e.g., GPT-4V, LLaVA, and Qwen-VL) to discern and respond to the nuanced aspects of social abuse manifested in memes. We introduce the comprehensive meme benchmark, GOAT-Bench , comprising over 6K varied memes encapsulating themes such as implicit hate speech, sexism, and cyberbullying, etc. Utilizing GOAT-Bench , we delve into the ability of LMMs to accurately assess hatefulness, misogyny, offensiveness, sarcasm, and harmful content. Our extensive experiments across a range of LMMs reveal that current models still exhibit a deficiency in safety awareness, showing insensitivity to various forms of implicit abuse. We posit that this shortfall represents a critical impediment to the realization of safe artificial intelligence. The GOAT-Bench and accompanying resources are publicly accessible at https://goatlmm.github.io/ , contributing to ongoing research in this vital field.

The proliferation of misinformation, such as rumors on social media, has drawn significant attention, prompting various expressions of stance among users. Although rumor detection and stance detection are distinct tasks, they can complement each other. Rumors can be identified by cross-referencing stances in related posts, and stances are influenced by the nature of the rumor. However, existing stance detection methods often require post-level stance annotations, which are costly to obtain. We propose a novel LLM-enhanced MIL approach to jointly predict post stance and claim class labels, supervised solely by claim labels, using an undirected microblog propagation model. Our weakly supervised approach relies only on bag-level labels of claim veracity, aligning with multi-instance learning (MIL) principles. To achieve this, we transform the multi-class problem into multiple MIL-based binary classification problems. We then employ a discriminative attention layer to aggregate the outputs from these classifiers into finer-grained classes. Experiments conducted on three rumor datasets and two stance datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, highlighting strong connections between rumor veracity and expressed stances in responding posts. Our method shows promising performance in joint rumor and stance detection compared to the state-of-the-art methods.

Most fake news detection methods learn latent feature representations based on neural networks, which makes them black boxes to classify a piece of news without giving any justification. Existing explainable systems generate veracity justifications from investigative journalism, which suffer from debunking delayed and low efficiency. Recent studies simply assume that the justification is equivalent to the majority opinions expressed in the wisdom of crowds. However, the opinions typically contain some inaccurate or biased information since the wisdom of crowds is uncensored. To detect fake news from a sea of diverse, crowded and even competing narratives, in this paper, we propose a novel defense-based explainable fake news detection framework. Specifically, we first propose an evidence extraction module to split the wisdom of crowds into two competing parties and respectively detect salient evidences. To gain concise insights from evidences, we then design a prompt-based module that utilizes a large language model to generate justifications by inferring reasons towards two possible veracities. Finally, we propose a defense-based inference module to determine veracity via modeling the defense among these justifications. Extensive experiments conducted on two real-world benchmarks demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in terms of fake news detection and provides high-quality justifications.

The age of social media is flooded with Internet memes, necessitating a clear grasp and effective identification of harmful ones. This task presents a significant challenge due to the implicit meaning embedded in memes, which is not explicitly conveyed through the surface text and image. However, existing harmful meme detection methods do not present readable explanations that unveil such implicit meaning to support their detection decisions. In this paper, we propose an explainable approach to detect harmful memes, achieved through reasoning over conflicting rationales from both harmless and harmful positions. Specifically, inspired by the powerful capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) on text generation and reasoning, we first elicit multimodal debate between LLMs to generate the explanations derived from the contradictory arguments. Then we propose to fine-tune a small language model as the debate judge for harmfulness inference, to facilitate multimodal fusion between the harmfulness rationales and the intrinsic multimodal information within memes. In this way, our model is empowered to perform dialectical reasoning over intricate and implicit harm-indicative patterns, utilizing multimodal explanations originating from both harmless and harmful arguments. Extensive experiments on three public meme datasets demonstrate that our harmful meme detection approach achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods and exhibits a superior capacity for explaining the meme harmfulness of the model predictions.