Phishing emails are a critical component of the cybercrime kill chain due to their wide reach and low cost. Their ever-evolving nature renders traditional rule-based and feature-engineered detectors ineffective in the ongoing arms race between attackers and defenders. The rise of large language models (LLMs) further exacerbates the threat, enabling attackers to craft highly convincing phishing emails at minimal cost. This work demonstrates that LLMs can generate psychologically persuasive phishing emails tailored to victim profiles, successfully bypassing nearly all commercial and academic detectors. To defend against such threats, we propose PiMRef, the first reference-based phishing email detector that leverages knowledge-based invariants. Our core insight is that persuasive phishing emails often contain disprovable identity claims, which contradict real-world facts. PiMRef reframes phishing detection as an identity fact-checking task. Given an email, PiMRef (i) extracts the sender's claimed identity, (ii) verifies the legitimacy of the sender's domain against a predefined knowledge base, and (iii) detects call-to-action prompts that push user engagement. Contradictory claims are flagged as phishing indicators and serve as human-understandable explanations. Compared to existing methods such as D-Fence, HelpHed, and ChatSpamDetector, PiMRef boosts precision by 8.8% with no loss in recall on standard benchmarks like Nazario and PhishPot. In a real-world evaluation of 10,183 emails across five university accounts over three years, PiMRef achieved 92.1% precision, 87.9% recall, and a median runtime of 0.05s, outperforming the state-of-the-art in both effectiveness and efficiency.
Automated fact checking with large language models (LLMs) offers a scalable alternative to manual verification. Evaluating fact checking is challenging as existing benchmark datasets often include post claim analysis and annotator cues, which are absent in real world scenarios where claims are fact checked immediately after being made. This limits the realism of current evaluations. We present Politi Fact Only (PFO), a 5 class benchmark dataset of 2,982 political claims from politifact.com, where all post claim analysis and annotator cues have been removed manually. This ensures that models are evaluated using only the information that would have been available prior to the claim's verification. Evaluating LLMs on PFO, we see an average performance drop of 22% in terms of macro f1 compared to PFO's unfiltered version. Based on the identified challenges of the existing LLM based fact checking system, we propose RAV (Recon Answer Verify), an agentic framework with three agents: question generator, answer generator, and label generator. Our pipeline iteratively generates and answers sub questions to verify different aspects of the claim before finally generating the label. RAV generalizes across domains and label granularities, and it outperforms state of the art approaches on well known baselines RAWFC (fact checking, 3 class) by 25.28%, and on HOVER (encyclopedia, 2 class) by 1.54% on 2 hop, 4.94% on 3 hop, and 1.78% on 4 hop, sub categories respectively. RAV shows the least performance drop compared to baselines of 16.3% in macro f1 when we compare PFO with its unfiltered version.
Numerical claims, statements involving quantities, comparisons, and temporal references, pose unique challenges for automated fact-checking systems. In this study, we evaluate modeling strategies for veracity prediction of such claims using the QuanTemp dataset and building our own evidence retrieval pipeline. We investigate three key factors: (1) the impact of more evidences with longer input context windows using ModernBERT, (2) the effect of right-to-left (R2L) tokenization, and (3) their combined influence on classification performance. Contrary to prior findings in arithmetic reasoning tasks, R2L tokenization does not boost natural language inference (NLI) of numerical tasks. A longer context window does also not enhance veracity performance either, highlighting evidence quality as the dominant bottleneck. Our best-performing system achieves competitive macro-average F1 score of 0.57 and places us among the Top-4 submissions in Task 3 of CheckThat! 2025. Our code is available at https://github.com/dsgt-arc/checkthat-2025-numerical.
Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant potential for advancing fact-checking by leveraging their capabilities in reasoning, evidence retrieval, and explanation generation. However, existing benchmarks fail to comprehensively evaluate LLMs and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in realistic misinformation scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce RealFactBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess the fact-checking capabilities of LLMs and MLLMs across diverse real-world tasks, including Knowledge Validation, Rumor Detection, and Event Verification. RealFactBench consists of 6K high-quality claims drawn from authoritative sources, encompassing multimodal content and diverse domains. Our evaluation framework further introduces the Unknown Rate (UnR) metric, enabling a more nuanced assessment of models' ability to handle uncertainty and balance between over-conservatism and over-confidence. Extensive experiments on 7 representative LLMs and 4 MLLMs reveal their limitations in real-world fact-checking and offer valuable insights for further research. RealFactBench is publicly available at https://github.com/kalendsyang/RealFactBench.git.
Technological progress has led to concrete advancements in tasks that were regarded as challenging, such as automatic fact-checking. Interest in adopting these systems for public health and medicine has grown due to the high-stakes nature of medical decisions and challenges in critically appraising a vast and diverse medical literature. Evidence-based medicine connects to every individual, and yet the nature of it is highly technical, rendering the medical literacy of majority users inadequate to sufficiently navigate the domain. Such problems with medical communication ripens the ground for end-to-end fact-checking agents: check a claim against current medical literature and return with an evidence-backed verdict. And yet, such systems remain largely unused. To understand this, we present the first study examining how clinical experts verify real claims from social media by synthesizing medical evidence. In searching for this upper-bound, we reveal fundamental challenges in end-to-end fact-checking when applied to medicine: Difficulties connecting claims in the wild to scientific evidence in the form of clinical trials; ambiguities in underspecified claims mixed with mismatched intentions; and inherently subjective veracity labels. We argue that fact-checking should be approached and evaluated as an interactive communication problem, rather than an end-to-end process.
The proliferation of misinformation poses a significant threat to society, exacerbated by the capabilities of generative AI. This demo paper introduces Veracity, an open-source AI system designed to empower individuals to combat misinformation through transparent and accessible fact-checking. Veracity leverages the synergy between Large Language Models (LLMs) and web retrieval agents to analyze user-submitted claims and provide grounded veracity assessments with intuitive explanations. Key features include multilingual support, numerical scoring of claim veracity, and an interactive interface inspired by familiar messaging applications. This paper will showcase Veracity's ability to not only detect misinformation but also explain its reasoning, fostering media literacy and promoting a more informed society.
Scientific fact-checking aims to determine the veracity of scientific claims by retrieving and analysing evidence from research literature. The problem is inherently more complex than general fact-checking since it must accommodate the evolving nature of scientific knowledge, the structural complexity of academic literature and the challenges posed by long-form, multimodal scientific expression. However, existing approaches focus on simplified versions of the problem based on small-scale datasets consisting of abstracts rather than full papers, thereby avoiding the distinct challenges associated with processing complete documents. This paper examines the limitations of current scientific fact-checking systems and reveals the many potential features and resources that could be exploited to advance their performance. It identifies key research challenges within evidence retrieval, including (1) evidence-driven retrieval that addresses semantic limitations and topic imbalance (2) time-aware evidence retrieval with citation tracking to mitigate outdated information, (3) structured document parsing to leverage long-range context, (4) handling complex scientific expressions, including tables, figures, and domain-specific terminology and (5) assessing the credibility of scientific literature. Preliminary experiments were conducted to substantiate these challenges and identify potential solutions. This perspective paper aims to advance scientific fact-checking with a specialised IR system tailored for real-world applications.
OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a vital resource for investigative journalists doing geolocation verification. However, existing tools to query OSM data such as Overpass Turbo require familiarity with complex query languages, creating barriers for non-technical users. We present SPOT, an open source natural language interface that makes OSM's rich, tag-based geographic data more accessible through intuitive scene descriptions. SPOT interprets user inputs as structured representations of geospatial object configurations using fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs), with results being displayed in an interactive map interface. While more general geospatial search tasks are conceivable, SPOT is specifically designed for use in investigative journalism, addressing real-world challenges such as hallucinations in model output, inconsistencies in OSM tagging, and the noisy nature of user input. It combines a novel synthetic data pipeline with a semantic bundling system to enable robust, accurate query generation. To our knowledge, SPOT is the first system to achieve reliable natural language access to OSM data at this level of accuracy. By lowering the technical barrier to geolocation verification, SPOT contributes a practical tool to the broader efforts to support fact-checking and combat disinformation.
Fact verification is essential for ensuring the reliability of LLM applications. In this study, we evaluate 12 pre-trained LLMs and one specialized fact-verifier, including frontier LLMs and open-weight reasoning LLMs, using a collection of examples from 14 fact-checking benchmarks. We share three findings intended to guide future development of more robust fact verifiers. First, we highlight the importance of addressing annotation errors and ambiguity in datasets, demonstrating that approximately 16\% of ambiguous or incorrectly labeled data substantially influences model rankings. Neglecting this issue may result in misleading conclusions during comparative evaluations, and we suggest using a systematic pipeline utilizing LLM-as-a-judge to help identify these issues at scale. Second, we discover that frontier LLMs with few-shot in-context examples, often overlooked in previous works, achieve top-tier performance. We therefore recommend future studies include comparisons with these simple yet highly effective baselines. Lastly, despite their effectiveness, frontier LLMs incur substantial costs, motivating the development of small, fine-tuned fact verifiers. We show that these small models still have room for improvement, particularly on instances that require complex reasoning. Encouragingly, we demonstrate that augmenting training with synthetic multi-hop reasoning data significantly enhances their capabilities in such instances. We release our code, model, and dataset at https://github.com/just1nseo/verifying-the-verifiers
Aligning large language models (LLMs) to accurately detect hallucinations remains a significant challenge due to the sophisticated nature of hallucinated text. Recognizing that hallucinated samples typically exhibit higher deceptive quality than traditional negative samples, we use these carefully engineered hallucinations as negative examples in the DPO alignment procedure. Our method incorporates a curriculum learning strategy, gradually transitioning the training from easier samples, identified based on the greatest reduction in probability scores from independent fact checking models, to progressively harder ones. This structured difficulty scaling ensures stable and incremental learning. Experimental evaluation demonstrates that our HaluCheck models, trained with curriculum DPO approach and high quality negative samples, significantly improves model performance across various metrics, achieving improvements of upto 24% on difficult benchmarks like MedHallu and HaluEval. Additionally, HaluCheck models demonstrate robustness in zero-shot settings, significantly outperforming larger state-of-the-art models across various benchmarks.
Misinformation and disinformation pose significant risks globally, with the Arab region facing unique vulnerabilities due to geopolitical instabilities, linguistic diversity, and cultural nuances. We explore these challenges through the key facets of combating misinformation: detection, tracking, mitigation and community-engagement. We shed light on how connecting with grass-roots fact-checking organizations, understanding cultural norms, promoting social correction, and creating strong collaborative information networks can create opportunities for a more resilient information ecosystem in the Arab world.
The spread of online misinformation poses serious threats to democratic societies. Traditionally, expert fact-checkers verify the truthfulness of information through investigative processes. However, the volume and immediacy of online content present major scalability challenges. Crowdsourcing offers a promising alternative by leveraging non-expert judgments, but it introduces concerns about bias, accuracy, and interpretability. This thesis investigates how human intelligence can be harnessed to assess the truthfulness of online information, focusing on three areas: misinformation assessment, cognitive biases, and automated fact-checking systems. Through large-scale crowdsourcing experiments and statistical modeling, it identifies key factors influencing human judgments and introduces a model for the joint prediction and explanation of truthfulness. The findings show that non-expert judgments often align with expert assessments, particularly when factors such as timing and experience are considered. By deepening our understanding of human judgment and bias in truthfulness assessment, this thesis contributes to the development of more transparent, trustworthy, and interpretable systems for combating misinformation.
We present OLMoTrace, the first system that traces the outputs of language models back to their full, multi-trillion-token training data in real time. OLMoTrace finds and shows verbatim matches between segments of language model output and documents in the training text corpora. Powered by an extended version of infini-gram (Liu et al., 2024), our system returns tracing results within a few seconds. OLMoTrace can help users understand the behavior of language models through the lens of their training data. We showcase how it can be used to explore fact checking, hallucination, and the creativity of language models. OLMoTrace is publicly available and fully open-source.
Scientific fact-checking has mostly focused on text and tables, overlooking scientific charts, which are key for presenting quantitative evidence and statistical reasoning. We introduce ClimateViz, the first large-scale benchmark for scientific fact-checking using expert-curated scientific charts. ClimateViz contains 49,862 claims linked to 2,896 visualizations, each labeled as support, refute, or not enough information. To improve interpretability, each example includes structured knowledge graph explanations covering trends, comparisons, and causal relations. We evaluate state-of-the-art multimodal language models, including both proprietary and open-source systems, in zero-shot and few-shot settings. Results show that current models struggle with chart-based reasoning: even the best systems, such as Gemini 2.5 and InternVL 2.5, reach only 76.2 to 77.8 percent accuracy in label-only settings, far below human performance (89.3 and 92.7 percent). Explanation-augmented outputs improve performance in some models. We released our dataset and code alongside the paper.
Automatic fact-checking has recently received more attention as a means of combating misinformation. Despite significant advancements, fact-checking systems based on retrieval-augmented language models still struggle to tackle adversarial claims, which are intentionally designed by humans to challenge fact-checking systems. To address these challenges, we propose a training-free method designed to rephrase the original claim, making it easier to locate supporting evidence. Our modular framework, SUCEA, decomposes the task into three steps: 1) Claim Segmentation and Decontextualization that segments adversarial claims into independent sub-claims; 2) Iterative Evidence Retrieval and Claim Editing that iteratively retrieves evidence and edits the subclaim based on the retrieved evidence; 3) Evidence Aggregation and Label Prediction that aggregates all retrieved evidence and predicts the entailment label. Experiments on two challenging fact-checking datasets demonstrate that our framework significantly improves on both retrieval and entailment label accuracy, outperforming four strong claim-decomposition-based baselines.
Search-augmented language models combine web search with Large Language Models (LLMs) to improve response groundedness and freshness. However, analyzing these systems remains challenging: existing datasets are limited in scale and narrow in scope, often constrained to static, single-turn, fact-checking questions. In this work, we introduce Search Arena, a crowd-sourced, large-scale, human-preference dataset of over 24,000 paired multi-turn user interactions with search-augmented LLMs. The dataset spans diverse intents and languages, and contains full system traces with around 12,000 human preference votes. Our analysis reveals that user preferences are influenced by the number of citations, even when the cited content does not directly support the attributed claims, uncovering a gap between perceived and actual credibility. Furthermore, user preferences vary across cited sources, revealing that community-driven platforms are generally preferred and static encyclopedic sources are not always appropriate and reliable. To assess performance across different settings, we conduct cross-arena analyses by testing search-augmented LLMs in a general-purpose chat environment and conventional LLMs in search-intensive settings. We find that web search does not degrade and may even improve performance in non-search settings; however, the quality in search settings is significantly affected if solely relying on the model's parametric knowledge. We open-sourced the dataset to support future research in this direction. Our dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/lmarena/search-arena.
The proliferation of misinformation necessitates scalable, automated fact-checking solutions. Yet, current benchmarks often overlook multilingual and topical diversity. This paper introduces a novel, dynamically extensible data set that includes 61,514 claims in multiple languages and topics, extending existing datasets up to 2024. Through a comprehensive evaluation of five prominent Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, GPT-3.5 Turbo, LLaMA 3.1, and Mixtral 8x7B, we identify significant performance gaps between different languages and topics. While overall GPT-4o achieves the highest accuracy, it declines to classify 43% of claims. Across all models, factual-sounding claims are misclassified more often than opinions, revealing a key vulnerability. These findings underscore the need for caution and highlight challenges in deploying LLM-based fact-checking systems at scale.
Large language models (LLMs) exhibit extensive medical knowledge but are prone to hallucinations and inaccurate citations, which pose a challenge to their clinical adoption and regulatory compliance. Current methods, such as Retrieval Augmented Generation, partially address these issues by grounding answers in source documents, but hallucinations and low fact-level explainability persist. In this work, we introduce a novel atomic fact-checking framework designed to enhance the reliability and explainability of LLMs used in medical long-form question answering. This method decomposes LLM-generated responses into discrete, verifiable units called atomic facts, each of which is independently verified against an authoritative knowledge base of medical guidelines. This approach enables targeted correction of errors and direct tracing to source literature, thereby improving the factual accuracy and explainability of medical Q&A. Extensive evaluation using multi-reader assessments by medical experts and an automated open Q&A benchmark demonstrated significant improvements in factual accuracy and explainability. Our framework achieved up to a 40% overall answer improvement and a 50% hallucination detection rate. The ability to trace each atomic fact back to the most relevant chunks from the database provides a granular, transparent explanation of the generated responses, addressing a major gap in current medical AI applications. This work represents a crucial step towards more trustworthy and reliable clinical applications of LLMs, addressing key prerequisites for clinical application and fostering greater confidence in AI-assisted healthcare.
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.
Large Language Models (LLMs) augmented with retrieval mechanisms have demonstrated significant potential in fact-checking tasks by integrating external knowledge. However, their reliability decreases when confronted with conflicting evidence from sources of varying credibility. This paper presents the first systematic evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models for fact-checking in the presence of conflicting evidence. To support this study, we introduce \textbf{CONFACT} (\textbf{Con}flicting Evidence for \textbf{Fact}-Checking) (Dataset available at https://github.com/zoeyyes/CONFACT), a novel dataset comprising questions paired with conflicting information from various sources. Extensive experiments reveal critical vulnerabilities in state-of-the-art RAG methods, particularly in resolving conflicts stemming from differences in media source credibility. To address these challenges, we investigate strategies to integrate media background information into both the retrieval and generation stages. Our results show that effectively incorporating source credibility significantly enhances the ability of RAG models to resolve conflicting evidence and improve fact-checking performance.