Scientific claim verification against tables typically requires predicting whether a claim is supported or refuted given a table. However, we argue that predicting the final label alone is insufficient: it reveals little about the model's reasoning and offers limited interpretability. To address this, we reframe table-text alignment as an explanation task, requiring models to identify the table cells essential for claim verification. We build a new dataset by extending the SciTab benchmark with human-annotated cell-level rationales. Annotators verify the claim label and highlight the minimal set of cells needed to support their decision. After the annotation process, we utilize the collected information and propose a taxonomy for handling ambiguous cases. Our experiments show that (i) incorporating table alignment information improves claim verification performance, and (ii) most LLMs, while often predicting correct labels, fail to recover human-aligned rationales, suggesting that their predictions do not stem from faithful reasoning.
Determining the veracity of atomic claims is an imperative component of many recently proposed fact-checking systems. Many approaches tackle this problem by first retrieving evidence by querying a search engine and then performing classification by providing the evidence set and atomic claim to a large language model, but this process deviates from what a human would do in order to perform the task. Recent work attempted to address this issue by proposing iterative evidence retrieval, allowing for evidence to be collected several times and only when necessary. Continuing along this line of research, we propose a novel claim verification system, called EMULATE, which is designed to better emulate human actions through the use of a multi-agent framework where each agent performs a small part of the larger task, such as ranking search results according to predefined criteria or evaluating webpage content. Extensive experiments on several benchmarks show clear improvements over prior work, demonstrating the efficacy of our new multi-agent framework.
The rapid use of large language models (LLMs) has raised critical concerns regarding the factual reliability of their outputs, especially in low-resource languages such as Urdu. Existing automated fact-checking solutions overwhelmingly focus on English, leaving a significant gap for the 200+ million Urdu speakers worldwide. In this work, we introduce UrduFactCheck, the first comprehensive, modular fact-checking framework specifically tailored for Urdu. Our system features a dynamic, multi-strategy evidence retrieval pipeline that combines monolingual and translation-based approaches to address the scarcity of high-quality Urdu evidence. We curate and release two new hand-annotated benchmarks: UrduFactBench for claim verification and UrduFactQA for evaluating LLM factuality. Extensive experiments demonstrate that UrduFactCheck, particularly its translation-augmented variants, consistently outperforms baselines and open-source alternatives on multiple metrics. We further benchmark twelve state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs on factual question answering in Urdu, highlighting persistent gaps between proprietary and open-source models. UrduFactCheck's code and datasets are open-sourced and publicly available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/UrduFactCheck.
Claim verification is essential in combating misinformation, and large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged in this area as powerful tools for assessing the veracity of claims using external knowledge. Existing LLM-based methods for claim verification typically adopt a Decompose-Then-Verify paradigm, which involves decomposing complex claims into several independent sub-claims and verifying each sub-claim separately. However, this paradigm often introduces errors during the claim decomposition process. To mitigate these errors, we propose to develop the Chain-of-Thought (CoT)-Verify paradigm, which leverages LLM reasoning methods to generate CoT-verification paths for the original complex claim without requiring decompositions into sub-claims and separate verification stages. The CoT-Verify paradigm allows us to propose a natural fine-tuning method called Reasoning-CV to enhance the verification capabilities in LLMs. Reasoning-CV includes a supervised fine-tuning (SFT) stage and a self-improvement direct preference optimization (DPO) stage. Utilizing only an 8B pre-trained LLM, Reasoning-CV demonstrates superior knowledge-assisted claim verification performances compared to existing Decompose-Then-Verify methods, as well as powerful black-box LLMs such as GPT-4o+CoT and o1-preview. Our code is available.
The detection of manipulated content, a prevalent form of fake news, has been widely studied in recent years. While existing solutions have been proven effective in fact-checking and analyzing fake news based on historical events, the reliance on either intrinsic knowledge obtained during training or manually curated context hinders them from tackling zero-day manipulated content, which can only be recognized with real-time contextual information. In this work, we propose Manicod, a tool designed for detecting zero-day manipulated content. Manicod first sources contextual information about the input claim from mainstream search engines, and subsequently vectorizes the context for the large language model (LLM) through retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). The LLM-based inference can produce a "truthful" or "manipulated" decision and offer a textual explanation for the decision. To validate the effectiveness of Manicod, we also propose a dataset comprising 4270 pieces of manipulated fake news derived from 2500 recent real-world news headlines. Manicod achieves an overall F1 score of 0.856 on this dataset and outperforms existing methods by up to 1.9x in F1 score on their benchmarks on fact-checking and claim verification.
The rapid spread of misinformation, driven by digital media and AI-generated content, has made automatic claim verification essential. Traditional methods, which depend on expert-annotated evidence, are labor-intensive and not scalable. Although recent automated systems have improved, they still struggle with complex claims that require nuanced reasoning. To address this, we propose CRAVE, a Conflicting Reasoning Approach for explainable claim VErification, that verify the complex claims based on the conflicting rationales reasoned by large language models (LLMs). Specifically, CRAVE introduces a three-module framework. Ambiguity Elimination enchanced Evidence Retrieval module performs ambiguity elimination and entity-based search to gather relevant evidence related to claim verification from external sources like Wikipedia. Conflicting Perspective Reasoning and Preliminary Judgment module with LLMs adopts LLMs to reason rationales with conflicting stances about claim verification from retrieved evidence across four dimensions, i.e., direct evidence, semantic relationships, linguistic patterns, and logical reasoning and make a preliminary judgment. Finally, Small Language Model (SLM) based Judge module is fine-tuned to make use of preliminary judgment from LLMs to assess the confidence of the conflicting rationales and make a final authenticity judgment. This methodology allows CRAVE to capture subtle inconsistencies in complex claims, improving both the accuracy and transparency of claim verification. Extensive experiments on two public claim verification datasets demonstrate that our CRAVE model achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods and exhibits a superior capacity for finding relevant evidence and explaining the model predictions. The code is provided at https://github.com/8zym/CRAVE.
Current research on the \textit{Decompose-Then-Verify} paradigm for evaluating the factuality of long-form text typically treats decomposition and verification in isolation, overlooking their interactions and potential misalignment. We find that existing decomposition policies, typically hand-crafted demonstrations, do not align well with downstream verifiers in terms of atomicity -- a novel metric quantifying information density -- leading to suboptimal verification results. We formulate finding the optimal decomposition policy for optimal verification as a bilevel optimization problem. To approximate a solution for this strongly NP-hard problem, we propose dynamic decomposition, a reinforcement learning framework that leverages verifier feedback to learn a policy for dynamically decomposing claims to verifier-preferred atomicity. Experimental results show that dynamic decomposition outperforms existing decomposition policies, improving verification confidence by 0.07 and accuracy by 0.12 (on a 0-1 scale) on average across varying verifiers, datasets, and atomcities of input claims.
LLM developers are increasingly reliant on synthetic data, but generating high-quality data for complex long-context reasoning tasks remains challenging. We introduce CLIPPER, a compression-based approach for generating synthetic data tailored to narrative claim verification - a task that requires reasoning over a book to verify a given claim. Instead of generating claims directly from the raw text of the book, which results in artifact-riddled claims, CLIPPER first compresses the book into chapter outlines and book summaries and then uses these intermediate representations to generate complex claims and corresponding chain-of-thoughts. Compared to naive approaches, CLIPPER produces claims that are more valid, grounded, and complex. Using CLIPPER, we construct a dataset of 19K synthetic book claims paired with their source texts and chain-of-thought reasoning, and use it to fine-tune three open-weight models. Our best model achieves breakthrough results on narrative claim verification (from 28% to 76% accuracy on our test set) and sets a new state-of-the-art for sub-10B models on the NoCha leaderboard. Further analysis shows that our models generate more detailed and grounded chain-of-thought reasoning while also improving performance on other narrative understanding tasks (e.g., NarrativeQA).
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) helps address the limitations of the parametric knowledge embedded within a language model (LM). However, investigations of how LMs utilise retrieved information of varying complexity in real-world scenarios have been limited to synthetic contexts. We introduce DRUID (Dataset of Retrieved Unreliable, Insufficient and Difficult-to-understand contexts) with real-world queries and contexts manually annotated for stance. The dataset is based on the prototypical task of automated claim verification, for which automated retrieval of real-world evidence is crucial. We compare DRUID to synthetic datasets (CounterFact, ConflictQA) and find that artificial datasets often fail to represent the complex and diverse real-world context settings. We show that synthetic datasets exaggerate context characteristics rare in real retrieved data, which leads to inflated context utilisation results, as measured by our novel ACU score. Moreover, while previous work has mainly focused on singleton context characteristics to explain context utilisation, correlations between singleton context properties and ACU on DRUID are surprisingly small compared to other properties related to context source. Overall, our work underscores the need for real-world aligned context utilisation studies to represent and improve performance in real-world RAG settings.
The proliferation of disinformation presents a growing threat to societal trust and democracy, necessitating robust and scalable Fact-Checking systems. In this work, we present Dynamic Evidence-based FAct-checking with Multimodal Experts (DEFAME), a modular, zero-shot MLLM pipeline for open-domain, text-image claim verification. DEFAME frames the problem of fact-checking as a six-stage process, dynamically deciding about the usage of external tools for the retrieval of textual and visual evidence. In addition to the claim's veracity, DEFAME returns a justification accompanied by a comprehensive, multimodal fact-checking report. While most alternatives either focus on sub-tasks of fact-checking, lack explainability or are limited to text-only inputs, DEFAME solves the problem of fact-checking end-to-end, including claims with images or those that require visual evidence. Evaluation on the popular benchmarks VERITE, AVeriTeC, and MOCHEG shows that DEFAME surpasses all previous methods, establishing it as the new state-of-the-art fact-checking system.
Retractions play a vital role in maintaining scientific integrity, yet systematic studies of retractions in computer science and other STEM fields remain scarce. We present WithdrarXiv, the first large-scale dataset of withdrawn papers from arXiv, containing over 14,000 papers and their associated retraction comments spanning the repository's entire history through September 2024. Through careful analysis of author comments, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy of retraction reasons, identifying 10 distinct categories ranging from critical errors to policy violations. We demonstrate a simple yet highly accurate zero-shot automatic categorization of retraction reasons, achieving a weighted average F1-score of 0.96. Additionally, we release WithdrarXiv-SciFy, an enriched version including scripts for parsed full-text PDFs, specifically designed to enable research in scientific feasibility studies, claim verification, and automated theorem proving. These findings provide valuable insights for improving scientific quality control and automated verification systems. Finally, and most importantly, we discuss ethical issues and take a number of steps to implement responsible data release while fostering open science in this area.
After the introduction of Large Language Models (LLMs), there have been substantial improvements in the performance of Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks, including Text Summarization and Machine Translation. However, LLMs still produce outputs containing hallucinations, that is, content not grounded in factual information. Therefore, developing methods to assess the factuality of LLMs has become urgent. Indeed, resources for factuality evaluation have recently emerged. Although challenging, these resources face one or more of the following limitations: (i) they are tailored to a specific task or domain; (ii) they are limited in size, thereby preventing the training of new factuality evaluators; (iii) they are designed for simpler verification tasks, such as claim verification. To address these issues, we introduce LLM-Oasis, to the best of our knowledge the largest resource for training end-to-end factuality evaluators. LLM-Oasis is constructed by extracting claims from Wikipedia, falsifying a subset of these claims, and generating pairs of factual and unfactual texts. We then rely on human annotators to both validate the quality of our dataset and to create a gold standard test set for benchmarking factuality evaluation systems. Our experiments demonstrate that LLM-Oasis presents a significant challenge for state-of-the-art LLMs, with GPT-4o achieving up to 60% accuracy in our proposed end-to-end factuality evaluation task, highlighting its potential to drive future research in the field.
A lot of claims are made in social media posts, which may contain misinformation or fake news. Hence, it is crucial to identify claims as a first step towards claim verification. Given the huge number of social media posts, the task of identifying claims needs to be automated. This competition deals with the task of 'Claim Span Identification' in which, given a text, parts / spans that correspond to claims are to be identified. This task is more challenging than the traditional binary classification of text into claim or not-claim, and requires state-of-the-art methods in Pattern Recognition, Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning. For this competition, we used a newly developed dataset called HECSI containing about 8K posts in English and about 8K posts in Hindi with claim-spans marked by human annotators. This paper gives an overview of the competition, and the solutions developed by the participating teams.
We introduce FinDVer, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the explainable claim verification capabilities of LLMs in the context of understanding and analyzing long, hybrid-content financial documents. FinDVer contains 2,400 expert-annotated examples, divided into three subsets: information extraction, numerical reasoning, and knowledge-intensive reasoning, each addressing common scenarios encountered in real-world financial contexts. We assess a broad spectrum of LLMs under long-context and RAG settings. Our results show that even the current best-performing system, GPT-4o, still lags behind human experts. We further provide in-depth analysis on long-context and RAG setting, Chain-of-Thought reasoning, and model reasoning errors, offering insights to drive future advancements. We believe that FinDVer can serve as a valuable benchmark for evaluating LLMs in claim verification over complex, expert-domain documents.
Fact-checking long-form text is challenging, and it is therefore common practice to break it down into multiple atomic claims. The typical approach to fact-checking these atomic claims involves retrieving a fixed number of pieces of evidence, followed by a verification step. However, this method is usually not cost-effective, as it underutilizes the verification model's internal knowledge of the claim and fails to replicate the iterative reasoning process in human search strategies. To address these limitations, we propose FIRE, a novel agent-based framework that integrates evidence retrieval and claim verification in an iterative manner. Specifically, FIRE employs a unified mechanism to decide whether to provide a final answer or generate a subsequent search query, based on its confidence in the current judgment. We compare FIRE with other strong fact-checking frameworks and find that it achieves slightly better performance while reducing large language model (LLM) costs by an average of 7.6 times and search costs by 16.5 times. These results indicate that FIRE holds promise for application in large-scale fact-checking operations. Our code is available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/fire.git.
The rise of digital misinformation has heightened interest in using multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs) for fact-checking. This study systematically evaluates translation bias and the effectiveness of LLMs for cross-lingual claim verification across 15 languages from five language families: Romance, Slavic, Turkic, Indo-Aryan, and Kartvelian. Using the XFACT dataset to assess their impact on accuracy and bias, we investigate two distinct translation methods: pre-translation and self-translation. We use mBERT's performance on the English dataset as a baseline to compare language-specific accuracies. Our findings reveal that low-resource languages exhibit significantly lower accuracy in direct inference due to underrepresentation in the training data. Furthermore, larger models demonstrate superior performance in self-translation, improving translation accuracy and reducing bias. These results highlight the need for balanced multilingual training, especially in low-resource languages, to promote equitable access to reliable fact-checking tools and minimize the risk of spreading misinformation in different linguistic contexts.
We introduce Loki, an open-source tool designed to address the growing problem of misinformation. Loki adopts a human-centered approach, striking a balance between the quality of fact-checking and the cost of human involvement. It decomposes the fact-checking task into a five-step pipeline: breaking down long texts into individual claims, assessing their check-worthiness, generating queries, retrieving evidence, and verifying the claims. Instead of fully automating the claim verification process, Loki provides essential information at each step to assist human judgment, especially for general users such as journalists and content moderators. Moreover, it has been optimized for latency, robustness, and cost efficiency at a commercially usable level. Loki is released under an MIT license and is available on GitHub. We also provide a video presenting the system and its capabilities.
This paper describes IAI group's participation for automated check-worthiness estimation for claims, within the framework of the 2024 CheckThat! Lab "Task 1: Check-Worthiness Estimation". The task involves the automated detection of check-worthy claims in English, Dutch, and Arabic political debates and Twitter data. We utilized various pre-trained generative decoder and encoder transformer models, employing methods such as few-shot chain-of-thought reasoning, fine-tuning, data augmentation, and transfer learning from one language to another. Despite variable success in terms of performance, our models achieved notable placements on the organizer's leaderboard: ninth-best in English, third-best in Dutch, and the top placement in Arabic, utilizing multilingual datasets for enhancing the generalizability of check-worthiness detection. Despite a significant drop in performance on the unlabeled test dataset compared to the development test dataset, our findings contribute to the ongoing efforts in claim detection research, highlighting the challenges and potential of language-specific adaptations in claim verification systems.
Claim verification can be a challenging task. In this paper, we present a method to enhance the robustness and reasoning capabilities of automated claim verification through the extraction of short facts from evidence. Our novel approach, FactDetect, leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate concise factual statements from evidence and label these facts based on their semantic relevance to the claim and evidence. The generated facts are then combined with the claim and evidence. To train a lightweight supervised model, we incorporate a fact-detection task into the claim verification process as a multitasking approach to improve both performance and explainability. We also show that augmenting FactDetect in the claim verification prompt enhances performance in zero-shot claim verification using LLMs. Our method demonstrates competitive results in the supervised claim verification model by 15% on the F1 score when evaluated for challenging scientific claim verification datasets. We also demonstrate that FactDetect can be augmented with claim and evidence for zero-shot prompting (AugFactDetect) in LLMs for verdict prediction. We show that AugFactDetect outperforms the baseline with statistical significance on three challenging scientific claim verification datasets with an average of 17.3% performance gain compared to the best performing baselines.
Fact-checking real-world claims often requires reviewing multiple multimodal documents to assess a claim's truthfulness, which is a highly laborious and time-consuming task. In this paper, we present a summarization model designed to generate claim-specific summaries useful for fact-checking from multimodal, multi-document datasets. The model takes inputs in the form of documents, images, and a claim, with the objective of assisting in fact-checking tasks. We introduce a dynamic perceiver-based model that can handle inputs from multiple modalities of arbitrary lengths. To train our model, we leverage a novel reinforcement learning-based entailment objective to generate summaries that provide evidence distinguishing between different truthfulness labels. To assess the efficacy of our approach, we conduct experiments on both an existing benchmark and a new dataset of multi-document claims that we contribute. Our approach outperforms the SOTA approach by 4.6% in the claim verification task on the MOCHEG dataset and demonstrates strong performance on our new Multi-News-Fact-Checking dataset.