The rise of misinformation, exacerbated by Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT and Gemini, demands robust fact-checking solutions, especially for low-resource languages like Vietnamese. Existing methods struggle with semantic ambiguity, homonyms, and complex linguistic structures, often trading accuracy for efficiency. We introduce SemViQA, a novel Vietnamese fact-checking framework integrating Semantic-based Evidence Retrieval (SER) and Two-step Verdict Classification (TVC). Our approach balances precision and speed, achieving state-of-the-art results with 78.97\% strict accuracy on ISE-DSC01 and 80.82\% on ViWikiFC, securing 1st place in the UIT Data Science Challenge. Additionally, SemViQA Faster improves inference speed 7x while maintaining competitive accuracy. SemViQA sets a new benchmark for Vietnamese fact verification, advancing the fight against misinformation. The source code is available at: https://github.com/DAVID-NGUYEN-S16/SemViQA.
Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural language explanations as an alternative to feature attribution methods for model interpretability. However, despite their plausibility, they may not reflect the model's internal reasoning faithfully, which is crucial for understanding the model's true decision-making processes. Although several faithfulness metrics have been proposed, a unified evaluation framework remains absent. To address this gap, we present Causal Diagnosticity, a framework to evaluate faithfulness metrics for natural language explanations. Our framework employs the concept of causal diagnosticity, and uses model-editing methods to generate faithful-unfaithful explanation pairs. Our benchmark includes four tasks: fact-checking, analogy, object counting, and multi-hop reasoning. We evaluate a variety of faithfulness metrics, including post-hoc explanation and chain-of-thought-based methods. We find that all tested faithfulness metrics often fail to surpass a random baseline. Our work underscores the need for improved metrics and more reliable interpretability methods in LLMs.
Images taken out of their context are the most prevalent form of multimodal misinformation. Debunking them requires (1) providing the true context of the image and (2) checking the veracity of the image's caption. However, existing automated fact-checking methods fail to tackle both objectives explicitly. In this work, we introduce COVE, a new method that predicts first the true COntext of the image and then uses it to predict the VEracity of the caption. COVE beats the SOTA context prediction model on all context items, often by more than five percentage points. It is competitive with the best veracity prediction models on synthetic data and outperforms them on real-world data, showing that it is beneficial to combine the two tasks sequentially. Finally, we conduct a human study that reveals that the predicted context is a reusable and interpretable artifact to verify new out-of-context captions for the same image. Our code and data are made available.
The use of LLMs as automated judges ("LLM-as-a-judge") is now widespread, yet standard judges suffer from a multitude of reliability issues. To address these challenges, we introduce Verdict, an open-source library for scaling judge-time compute to enhance the accuracy, reliability, and interpretability of automated evaluators. Verdict leverages the composition of modular reasoning units -- such as verification, debate, and aggregation -- and increased inference-time compute to improve LLM judge quality. Across a variety of challenging tasks such as content moderation, fact-checking, and hallucination detection, Verdict judges achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) or near-SOTA performance, surpassing orders-of-magnitude larger fine-tuned judges, prompted judges, and reasoning models. Ultimately, we hope Verdict serves as a useful framework for researchers and practitioners building scalable, interpretable, and reliable LLM-based evaluators.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies. However, existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics, which fail to automatically evaluate the justification production and uncover the nuanced limitations of LLMs in fact-checking. In this work, we introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs' fact-checking capabilities. Leveraging importance sampling principles and multi-agent collaboration, FACT-AUDIT generates adaptive and scalable datasets, performs iterative model-centric evaluations, and updates assessments based on model-specific responses. By incorporating justification production alongside verdict prediction, this framework provides a comprehensive and evolving audit of LLMs' factual reasoning capabilities, to investigate their trustworthiness. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FACT-AUDIT effectively differentiates among state-of-the-art LLMs, providing valuable insights into model strengths and limitations in model-centric fact-checking analysis.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used, but they often generate subtle factual errors, especially in long-form text. These errors are fatal in some specialized domains such as medicine. Existing fact-checking with grounding documents methods face two main challenges: (1) they struggle to understand complex multihop relations in long documents, often overlooking subtle factual errors; (2) most specialized methods rely on pairwise comparisons, requiring multiple model calls, leading to high resource and computational costs. To address these challenges, we propose \textbf{\textit{GraphCheck}}, a fact-checking framework that uses extracted knowledge graphs to enhance text representation. Graph Neural Networks further process these graphs as a soft prompt, enabling LLMs to incorporate structured knowledge more effectively. Enhanced with graph-based reasoning, GraphCheck captures multihop reasoning chains which are often overlooked by existing methods, enabling precise and efficient fact-checking in a single inference call. Experimental results on seven benchmarks spanning both general and medical domains demonstrate a 6.1\% overall improvement over baseline models. Notably, GraphCheck outperforms existing specialized fact-checkers and achieves comparable performance with state-of-the-art LLMs, such as DeepSeek-V3 and OpenAI-o1, with significantly fewer parameters.
This paper presents an effective approach to detect AI-generated text, developed for the Defactify 4.0 shared task at the fourth workshop on multimodal fact checking and hate speech detection. The task consists of two subtasks: Task-A, classifying whether a text is AI generated or human written, and Task-B, classifying the specific large language model that generated the text. Our team (Sarang) achieved the 1st place in both tasks with F1 scores of 1.0 and 0.9531, respectively. The methodology involves adding noise to the dataset to improve model robustness and generalization. We used an ensemble of DeBERTa models to effectively capture complex patterns in the text. The result indicates the effectiveness of our noise-driven and ensemble-based approach, setting a new standard in AI-generated text detection and providing guidance for future developments.
Complex claim fact-checking performs a crucial role in disinformation detection. However, existing fact-checking methods struggle with claim vagueness, specifically in effectively handling latent information and complex relations within claims. Moreover, evidence redundancy, where nonessential information complicates the verification process, remains a significant issue. To tackle these limitations, we propose Bilateral Defusing Verification (BiDeV), a novel fact-checking working-flow framework integrating multiple role-played LLMs to mimic the human-expert fact-checking process. BiDeV consists of two main modules: Vagueness Defusing identifies latent information and resolves complex relations to simplify the claim, and Redundancy Defusing eliminates redundant content to enhance the evidence quality. Extensive experimental results on two widely used challenging fact-checking benchmarks (Hover and Feverous-s) demonstrate that our BiDeV can achieve the best performance under both gold and open settings. This highlights the effectiveness of BiDeV in handling complex claims and ensuring precise fact-checking
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has shown impressive capabilities in mitigating hallucinations in large language models (LLMs). However, LLMs struggle to handle misleading retrievals and often fail to maintain their own reasoning when exposed to conflicting or selectively-framed evidence, making them vulnerable to real-world misinformation. In such real-world retrieval scenarios, misleading and conflicting information is rampant, particularly in the political domain, where evidence is often selectively framed, incomplete, or polarized. However, existing RAG benchmarks largely assume a clean retrieval setting, where models succeed by accurately retrieving and generating answers from gold-standard documents. This assumption fails to align with real-world conditions, leading to an overestimation of RAG system performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce RAGuard, a fact-checking dataset designed to evaluate the robustness of RAG systems against misleading retrievals. Unlike prior benchmarks that rely on synthetic noise, our dataset constructs its retrieval corpus from Reddit discussions, capturing naturally occurring misinformation. It categorizes retrieved evidence into three types: supporting, misleading, and irrelevant, providing a realistic and challenging testbed for assessing how well RAG systems navigate different retrieval information. Our benchmark experiments reveal that when exposed to misleading retrievals, all tested LLM-powered RAG systems perform worse than their zero-shot baselines (i.e., no retrieval at all), highlighting their susceptibility to noisy environments. To the best of our knowledge, RAGuard is the first benchmark to systematically assess RAG robustness against misleading evidence. We expect this benchmark will drive future research toward improving RAG systems beyond idealized datasets, making them more reliable for real-world applications.
Robust automatic fact-checking systems have the potential to combat online misinformation at scale. However, most existing research primarily focuses on English. In this paper, we introduce MultiSynFact, the first large-scale multilingual fact-checking dataset containing 2.2M claim-source pairs designed to support Spanish, German, English, and other low-resource languages. Our dataset generation pipeline leverages Large Language Models (LLMs), integrating external knowledge from Wikipedia and incorporating rigorous claim validation steps to ensure data quality. We evaluate the effectiveness of MultiSynFact across multiple models and experimental settings. Additionally, we open-source a user-friendly framework to facilitate further research in multilingual fact-checking and dataset generation.
Fact verification (FV) aims to assess the veracity of a claim based on relevant evidence. The traditional approach for automated FV includes a three-part pipeline relying on short evidence snippets and encoder-only inference models. More recent approaches leverage the multi-turn nature of LLMs to address FV as a step-by-step problem where questions inquiring additional context are generated and answered until there is enough information to make a decision. This iterative method makes the verification process rational and explainable. While these methods have been tested for encyclopedic claims, exploration on domain-specific and realistic claims is missing. In this work, we apply an iterative FV system on three medical fact-checking datasets and evaluate it with multiple settings, including different LLMs, external web search, and structured reasoning using logic predicates. We demonstrate improvements in the final performance over traditional approaches and the high potential of step-by-step FV systems for domain-specific claims.
Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is a prominent approach for eliciting truthful answers from large language models (LLMs). To date, information-based and consistency-based UQ have been the dominant UQ methods for text generation via LLMs. Density-based methods, despite being very effective for UQ in text classification with encoder-based models, have not been very successful with generative LLMs. In this work, we adapt Mahalanobis Distance (MD) - a well-established UQ technique in classification tasks - for text generation and introduce a new supervised UQ method. Our method extracts token embeddings from multiple layers of LLMs, computes MD scores for each token, and uses linear regression trained on these features to provide robust uncertainty scores. Through extensive experiments on eleven datasets, we demonstrate that our approach substantially improves over existing UQ methods, providing accurate and computationally efficient uncertainty scores for both sequence-level selective generation and claim-level fact-checking tasks. Our method also exhibits strong generalization to out-of-domain data, making it suitable for a wide range of LLM-based applications.
Two commonly-employed strategies to combat the rise of misinformation on social media are (i) fact-checking by professional organisations and (ii) community moderation by platform users. Policy changes by Twitter/X and, more recently, Meta, signal a shift away from partnerships with fact-checking organisations and towards an increased reliance on crowdsourced community notes. However, the extent and nature of dependencies between fact-checking and helpful community notes remain unclear. To address these questions, we use language models to annotate a large corpus of Twitter/X community notes with attributes such as topic, cited sources, and whether they refute claims tied to broader misinformation narratives. Our analysis reveals that community notes cite fact-checking sources up to five times more than previously reported. Fact-checking is especially crucial for notes on posts linked to broader narratives, which are twice as likely to reference fact-checking sources compared to other sources. In conclusion, our results show that successful community moderation heavily relies on professional fact-checking.
Misinformation can be countered with fact-checking, but the process is costly and slow. Identifying checkworthy claims is the first step, where automation can help scale fact-checkers' efforts. However, detection methods struggle with content that is 1) multimodal, 2) from diverse domains, and 3) synthetic. We introduce HintsOfTruth, a public dataset for multimodal checkworthiness detection with $27$K real-world and synthetic image/claim pairs. The mix of real and synthetic data makes this dataset unique and ideal for benchmarking detection methods. We compare fine-tuned and prompted Large Language Models (LLMs). We find that well-configured lightweight text-based encoders perform comparably to multimodal models but the first only focus on identifying non-claim-like content. Multimodal LLMs can be more accurate but come at a significant computational cost, making them impractical for large-scale applications. When faced with synthetic data, multimodal models perform more robustly
A common strategy for fact-checking long-form content generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is extracting simple claims that can be verified independently. Since inaccurate or incomplete claims compromise fact-checking results, ensuring claim quality is critical. However, the lack of a standardized evaluation framework impedes assessment and comparison of claim extraction methods. To address this gap, we propose a framework for evaluating claim extraction in the context of fact-checking along with automated, scalable, and replicable methods for applying this framework, including novel approaches for measuring coverage and decontextualization. We also introduce Claimify, an LLM-based claim extraction method, and demonstrate that it outperforms existing methods under our evaluation framework. A key feature of Claimify is its ability to handle ambiguity and extract claims only when there is high confidence in the correct interpretation of the source text.
The advances in digital tools have led to the rampant spread of misinformation. While fact-checking aims to combat this, manual fact-checking is cumbersome and not scalable. It is essential for automated fact-checking to be efficient for aiding in combating misinformation in real-time and at the source. Fact-checking pipelines primarily comprise a knowledge retrieval component which extracts relevant knowledge to fact-check a claim from large knowledge sources like Wikipedia and a verification component. The existing works primarily focus on the fact-verification part rather than evidence retrieval from large data collections, which often face scalability issues for practical applications such as live fact-checking. In this study, we address this gap by exploring various methods for indexing a succinct set of factual statements from large collections like Wikipedia to enhance the retrieval phase of the fact-checking pipeline. We also explore the impact of vector quantization to further improve the efficiency of pipelines that employ dense retrieval approaches for first-stage retrieval. We study the efficiency and effectiveness of the approaches on fact-checking datasets such as HoVer and WiCE, leveraging Wikipedia as the knowledge source. We also evaluate the real-world utility of the efficient retrieval approaches by fact-checking 2024 presidential debate and also open source the collection of claims with corresponding labels identified in the debate. Through a combination of indexed facts together with Dense retrieval and Index compression, we achieve up to a 10.0x speedup on CPUs and more than a 20.0x speedup on GPUs compared to the classical fact-checking pipelines over large collections.
Fact-checking pipelines increasingly adopt the Decompose-Then-Verify paradigm, where texts are broken down into smaller claims for individual verification and subsequently combined for a veracity decision. While decomposition is widely-adopted in such pipelines, its effects on final fact-checking performance remain underexplored. Some studies have reported improvements from decompostition, while others have observed performance declines, indicating its inconsistent impact. To date, no comprehensive analysis has been conducted to understand this variability. To address this gap, we present an in-depth analysis that explicitly examines the impact of decomposition on downstream verification performance. Through error case inspection and experiments, we introduce a categorization of decomposition errors and reveal a trade-off between accuracy gains and the noise introduced through decomposition. Our analysis provides new insights into understanding current system's instability and offers guidance for future studies toward improving claim decomposition in fact-checking pipelines.
Fact-checking the truthfulness of claims usually requires reasoning over multiple evidence sentences. Oftentimes, evidence sentences may not be always self-contained, and may require additional contexts and references from elsewhere to understand coreferential expressions, acronyms, and the scope of a reported finding. For example, evidence sentences from an academic paper may need contextual sentences in the paper and descriptions in its cited papers to determine the scope of a research discovery. However, most fact-checking models mainly focus on the reasoning within evidence sentences, and ignore the auxiliary contexts and references. To address this problem, we propose a novel method, Context- and Reference-augmented Reasoning and Prompting. For evidence reasoning, we construct a three-layer evidence graph with evidence, context, and reference layers. We design intra- and cross-layer reasoning to integrate three graph layers into a unified evidence embedding. For verdict prediction, we design evidence-conditioned prompt encoder, which produces unique prompt embeddings for each claim. These evidence-conditioned prompt embeddings and claims are unified for fact-checking. Experiments verify the strength of our model.
Fact-checking is necessary to address the increasing volume of misinformation. Traditional fact-checking relies on manual analysis to verify claims, but it is slow and resource-intensive. This study establishes baseline comparisons for Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) using Large Language Models (LLMs) across multiple labeling schemes (binary, three-class, five-class) and extends traditional claim verification by incorporating analysis, verdict classification, and explanation in a structured setup to provide comprehensive justifications for real-world claims. We evaluate Llama-3 models of varying sizes (3B, 8B, 70B) on 17,856 claims collected from PolitiFact (2007-2024) using evidence retrieved via restricted web searches. We utilize TIGERScore as a reference-free evaluation metric to score the justifications. Our results show that larger LLMs consistently outperform smaller LLMs in classification accuracy and justification quality without fine-tuning. We find that smaller LLMs in a one-shot scenario provide comparable task performance to fine-tuned Small Language Models (SLMs) with large context sizes, while larger LLMs consistently surpass them. Evidence integration improves performance across all models, with larger LLMs benefiting most. Distinguishing between nuanced labels remains challenging, emphasizing the need for further exploration of labeling schemes and alignment with evidences. Our findings demonstrate the potential of retrieval-augmented AFC with LLMs.
The pervasiveness of large language models and generative AI in online media has amplified the need for effective automated fact-checking to assist fact-checkers in tackling the increasing volume and sophistication of misinformation. The complex nature of fact-checking demands that automated fact-checking systems provide explanations that enable fact-checkers to scrutinise their outputs. However, it is unclear how these explanations should align with the decision-making and reasoning processes of fact-checkers to be effectively integrated into their workflows. Through semi-structured interviews with fact-checking professionals, we bridge this gap by: (i) providing an account of how fact-checkers assess evidence, make decisions, and explain their processes; (ii) examining how fact-checkers use automated tools in practice; and (iii) identifying fact-checker explanation requirements for automated fact-checking tools. The findings show unmet explanation needs and identify important criteria for replicable fact-checking explanations that trace the model's reasoning path, reference specific evidence, and highlight uncertainty and information gaps.