Beyond Truth Discovery: A Two-Stage Framework to Assess the Severity of False Claim during Disasters — AI benchmark

Ruichen Yao, Tejna Dasari, Gulshat Baispay, Aizhan Zaurbek, Yifan Liu, Yaokun Liu, Zelin Li, Dong Wang/Beyond Truth Discovery: A Two-Stage Framework to Assess the Severity of False Claim during DisastersUnknown

False information spreads rapidly on social media during disasters and can undermine emergency response efforts, public trust, and crisis communication. Existing research primarily focuses on determining whether social media posts contain false information, but provides limited insight into the specific false claims embedded within posts and the severity of individual false claims. To address the limitations, we propose a two-stage framework to assess the severity of false claims during disasters. In the first stage, we develop a false claim extraction agent that identifies false claims from multimodal social media posts containing text, images, videos, and links. A subsequent verification step validates extracted claims with supporting evidence. In the second stage, we define false claim severity as the combination of two complementary dimensions: believability, which determines the likelihood that a claim will be believed, and harmfulness, which captures the potential consequences if it is believed. Human annotators assess both dimensions to construct a claim-level severity benchmark using false claims extracted from Reddit posts related to hurricanes and wildfires. Building upon this benchmark, we investigate false claim severity assessment as a human-AI alignment problem, evaluating whether models can reproduce human judgments under a shared evaluation rubric rather than merely predicting severity labels. Experiments on the benchmark show that traditional supervised models exhibit limited alignment with human judgments, whereas Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve substantially stronger performance. Among the evaluated strategies, in-context learning consistently achieves the strongest alignment with human judgments, highlighting the importance of human examples and shared decision criteria for severity assessment.

benchmark

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed14h ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

55 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

55Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 3 days observed0 not enough history

snapshots

Repository activity · 3 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at

inactivepushed

2026-08-252026-08-28

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 55/100

Below average

Alternatives

RIFT-Bench: Dynamic Red-teaming For Agentic AI Systems

0 · benchmark

Automating Parent Selection Configuration in Genetic Programming with Agentic AI

0 · benchmark

Security Assessment of DeepSeek Harness with A.I.G: Evaluating Resistance to Indirect Prompt Injection

0 · benchmark

AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation

0 · benchmark

55 Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler14h ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing