We introduce SciVer, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the ability of foundation models to verify claims within a multimodal scientific context. SciVer consists of 3,000 expert-annotated examples over 1,113 scientific papers, covering four subsets, each representing a common reasoning type in multimodal scientific claim verification. To enable fine-grained evaluation, each example includes expert-annotated supporting evidence. We assess the performance of 21 state-of-the-art multimodal foundation models, including o4-mini, Gemini-2.5-Flash, Llama-3.2-Vision, and Qwen2.5-VL. Our experiment reveals a substantial performance gap between these models and human experts on SciVer. Through an in-depth analysis of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and human-conducted error evaluations, we identify critical limitations in current open-source models, offering key insights to advance models' comprehension and reasoning in multimodal scientific literature tasks.
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.
Multi-hop claim verification is inherently challenging, requiring multi-step reasoning to construct verification chains while iteratively searching for information to uncover hidden bridging facts. This process is fundamentally interleaved, as effective reasoning relies on dynamically retrieved evidence, while effective search demands reasoning to refine queries based on partial information. To achieve this, we propose Hierarchical Agent Reasoning and Information Search (HARIS), explicitly modeling the coordinated process of reasoning-driven searching and search-informed reasoning. HARIS consists of a high-level reasoning agent that focuses on constructing the main verification chain, generating factual questions when more information is needed, and a low-level search agent that iteratively retrieves more information, refining its search based on intermediate findings. This design allows each agent to specialize in its respective task, enhancing verification accuracy and interpretability. HARIS is trained using reinforcement learning with outcome-based rewards. Experimental results on the EX-FEVER and HOVER benchmarks demonstrate that HARIS achieves strong performance, greatly advancing multi-hop claim verification.
Assessing scientific claims requires identifying, extracting, and reasoning with multimodal data expressed in information-rich figures in scientific literature. Despite the large body of work in scientific QA, figure captioning, and other multimodal reasoning tasks over chart-based data, there are no readily usable multimodal benchmarks that directly test claim verification abilities. To remedy this gap, we introduce a new benchmark MuSciClaims accompanied by diagnostics tasks. We automatically extract supported claims from scientific articles, which we manually perturb to produce contradicted claims. The perturbations are designed to test for a specific set of claim verification capabilities. We also introduce a suite of diagnostic tasks that help understand model failures. Our results show most vision-language models are poor (~0.3-0.5 F1), with even the best model only achieving 0.77 F1. They are also biased towards judging claims as supported, likely misunderstanding nuanced perturbations within the claims. Our diagnostics show models are bad at localizing correct evidence within figures, struggle with aggregating information across modalities, and often fail to understand basic components of the figure.
Claim verification is a long-standing and challenging task that demands not only high accuracy but also explainability of the verification process. This task becomes an emerging research issue in the era of large language models (LLMs) since real-world claims are often complex, featuring intricate semantic structures or obfuscated entities. Traditional approaches typically address this by decomposing claims into sub-claims and querying a knowledge base to resolve hidden or ambiguous entities. However, the absence of effective disambiguation strategies for these entities can compromise the entire verification process. To address these challenges, we propose Verify-in-the-Graph (VeGraph), a novel framework leveraging the reasoning and comprehension abilities of LLM agents. VeGraph operates in three phases: (1) Graph Representation - an input claim is decomposed into structured triplets, forming a graph-based representation that integrates both structured and unstructured information; (2) Entity Disambiguation -VeGraph iteratively interacts with the knowledge base to resolve ambiguous entities within the graph for deeper sub-claim verification; and (3) Verification - remaining triplets are verified to complete the fact-checking process. Experiments using Meta-Llama-3-70B (instruct version) show that VeGraph achieves competitive performance compared to baselines on two benchmarks HoVer and FEVEROUS, effectively addressing claim verification challenges. Our source code and data are available for further exploitation.
Integrating knowledge graphs (KGs) to enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is an emerging research challenge in claim verification. While KGs provide structured, semantically rich representations well-suited for reasoning, most existing verification methods rely on unstructured text corpora, limiting their ability to effectively leverage KGs. Additionally, despite possessing strong reasoning abilities, modern LLMs struggle with multi-step modular pipelines and reasoning over KGs without adaptation. To address these challenges, we propose ClaimPKG, an end-to-end framework that seamlessly integrates LLM reasoning with structured knowledge from KGs. Specifically, the main idea of ClaimPKG is to employ a lightweight, specialized LLM to represent the input claim as pseudo-subgraphs, guiding a dedicated subgraph retrieval module to identify relevant KG subgraphs. These retrieved subgraphs are then processed by a general-purpose LLM to produce the final verdict and justification. Extensive experiments on the FactKG dataset demonstrate that ClaimPKG achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming strong baselines in this research field by 9%-12% accuracy points across multiple categories. Furthermore, ClaimPKG exhibits zero-shot generalizability to unstructured datasets such as HoVer and FEVEROUS, effectively combining structured knowledge from KGs with LLM reasoning across various LLM backbones.
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.
The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has redefined the AI landscape, particularly due to their ability to encode factual and commonsense knowledge, and their outstanding performance in tasks requiring reasoning. Despite these advances, hallucinations and reasoning errors remain a significant barrier to their deployment in high-stakes settings. In this work, we observe that even the most prominent LLMs, such as OpenAI-o1, suffer from high rates of reasoning errors and hallucinations on tasks requiring commonsense reasoning over obscure, long-tail entities. To investigate this limitation, we present a new dataset for Commonsense reasoning over Long-Tail entities (CoLoTa), that consists of 3,300 queries from question answering and claim verification tasks and covers a diverse range of commonsense reasoning skills. We remark that CoLoTa can also serve as a Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) dataset since the support of knowledge required to answer its queries is present in the Wikidata knowledge graph. However, as opposed to existing KGQA benchmarks that merely focus on factoid questions, our CoLoTa queries also require commonsense reasoning. Our experiments with strong LLM-based KGQA methodologies indicate their severe inability to answer queries involving commonsense reasoning. Hence, we propose CoLoTa as a novel benchmark for assessing both (i) LLM commonsense reasoning capabilities and their robustness to hallucinations on long-tail entities and (ii) the commonsense reasoning capabilities of KGQA methods.
Program-guided reasoning has shown promise in complex claim fact-checking by decomposing claims into function calls and executing reasoning programs. However, prior work primarily relies on few-shot in-context learning (ICL) with ad-hoc demonstrations, which limit program diversity and require manual design with substantial domain knowledge. Fundamentally, the underlying principles of effective reasoning program generation still remain underexplored, making it challenging to construct effective demonstrations. To address this, we propose BOOST, a bootstrapping-based framework for few-shot reasoning program generation. BOOST explicitly integrates claim decomposition and information-gathering strategies as structural guidance for program generation, iteratively refining bootstrapped demonstrations in a strategy-driven and data-centric manner without human intervention. This enables a seamless transition from zero-shot to few-shot strategic program-guided learning, enhancing interpretability and effectiveness. Experimental results show that BOOST outperforms prior few-shot baselines in both zero-shot and few-shot settings for complex claim verification.
Validating key claims in scientific literature, particularly in biomedical research, is essential for ensuring accuracy and advancing knowledge. This process is critical in sectors like the pharmaceutical industry, where rapid scientific progress requires automation and deep domain expertise. However, current solutions have significant limitations. They lack end-to-end pipelines encompassing all claim extraction, evidence retrieval, and verification steps; rely on complex NLP and information retrieval pipelines prone to multiple failure points; and often fail to provide clear, user-friendly justifications for claim verification outcomes. To address these challenges, we introduce SciClaims, an advanced system powered by state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) that seamlessly integrates the entire scientific claim analysis process. SciClaims outperforms previous approaches in both claim extraction and verification without requiring additional fine-tuning, setting a new benchmark for automated scientific claim analysis.
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.
We present NSF-SciFy, a large-scale dataset for scientific claim extraction derived from the National Science Foundation (NSF) awards database, comprising over 400K grant abstracts spanning five decades. While previous datasets relied on published literature, we leverage grant abstracts which offer a unique advantage: they capture claims at an earlier stage in the research lifecycle before publication takes effect. We also introduce a new task to distinguish between existing scientific claims and aspirational research intentions in proposals.Using zero-shot prompting with frontier large language models, we jointly extract 114K scientific claims and 145K investigation proposals from 16K grant abstracts in the materials science domain to create a focused subset called NSF-SciFy-MatSci. We use this dataset to evaluate 3 three key tasks: (1) technical to non-technical abstract generation, where models achieve high BERTScore (0.85+ F1); (2) scientific claim extraction, where fine-tuned models outperform base models by 100% relative improvement; and (3) investigation proposal extraction, showing 90%+ improvement with fine-tuning. We introduce novel LLM-based evaluation metrics for robust assessment of claim/proposal extraction quality. As the largest scientific claim dataset to date -- with an estimated 2.8 million claims across all STEM disciplines funded by the NSF -- NSF-SciFy enables new opportunities for claim verification and meta-scientific research. We publicly release all datasets, trained models, and evaluation code to facilitate further research.
In this paper, we introduce CIBER (Claim Investigation Based on Evidence Retrieval), an extension of the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework designed to identify corroborating and refuting documents as evidence for scientific claim verification. CIBER addresses the inherent uncertainty in Large Language Models (LLMs) by evaluating response consistency across diverse interrogation probes. By focusing on the behavioral analysis of LLMs without requiring access to their internal information, CIBER is applicable to both white-box and black-box models. Furthermore, CIBER operates in an unsupervised manner, enabling easy generalization across various scientific domains. Comprehensive evaluations conducted using LLMs with varying levels of linguistic proficiency reveal CIBER's superior performance compared to conventional RAG approaches. These findings not only highlight the effectiveness of CIBER but also provide valuable insights for future advancements in LLM-based scientific claim verification.
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).
Transformer-based models dominate NLP tasks like sentiment analysis, machine translation, and claim verification. However, their massive computational demands and lack of interpretability pose challenges for real-world applications requiring efficiency and transparency. In this work, we explore Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Hyperbolic Graph Neural Networks (HGNNs) as lightweight yet effective alternatives for Environmental Claim Detection, reframing it as a graph classification problem. We construct dependency parsing graphs to explicitly model syntactic structures, using simple word embeddings (word2vec) for node features with dependency relations encoded as edge features. Our results demonstrate that these graph-based models achieve comparable or superior performance to state-of-the-art transformers while using 30x fewer parameters. This efficiency highlights the potential of structured, interpretable, and computationally efficient graph-based approaches.
Claim verification is the task of determining whether a claim is supported or refuted by evidence. Self-improvement methods, where reasoning chains are generated and those leading to correct results are selected for training, have succeeded in tasks like mathematical problem solving. However, in claim verification, this approach struggles. Low-quality reasoning chains may falsely match binary truth labels, introducing faulty reasoning into the self-improvement process and ultimately degrading performance. To address this, we propose STRIVE: Structured Reasoning for Self-Improved Verification. Our method introduces a structured reasoning design with Claim Decomposition, Entity Analysis, and Evidence Grounding Verification. These components improve reasoning quality, reduce errors, and provide additional supervision signals for self-improvement. STRIVE begins with a warm-up phase, where the base model is fine-tuned on a small number of annotated examples to learn the structured reasoning design. It is then applied to generate reasoning chains for all training examples, selecting only those that are correct and structurally sound for subsequent self-improvement training. We demonstrate that STRIVE achieves significant improvements over baseline models, with a 31.4% performance gain over the base model and 20.7% over Chain of Thought on the HOVER datasets, highlighting its effectiveness.