CORRECT: Context- and Reference-Augmented Reasoning and Prompting for Fact-Checking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09635v1
• Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 01:41:15 GMT
• Title: CORRECT: Context- and Reference-Augmented Reasoning and Prompting for Fact-Checking
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel method, Context- and Reference-augmented Reasoning and Prompting.<n>For evidence reasoning, we construct a three-layer evidence graph with evidence, context, and reference layers.<n>For verdict prediction, we design evidence-conditioned prompt encoder, which produces unique prompt embeddings for each claim.
• Score: 14.890042094350411
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Navigating Sparse Evidence: Agentic Visual RAG via Explicit Context Selection and Consolidation [50.92223196290564]
  We propose a unified agent loop for explicit evidence selection and consolidation.<n>During exploration, SCoRE retains only query-relevant observations and their source pointers in a maintained textual ledger.<n>At termination, it reloads the referenced original images and consolidates the visual evidence for answering, arranging it into a logical sequence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T16:11:35Z)
• HiEviDR-Bench: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research [52.87128503345243]
  We introduce HiEviDR-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Hierarchical Evidence Aggregation in Deep Research.<n>HiEviDR-Bench represents each instance with an explicit evidence graph that captures evidence selection, cross-source linking, and aggregation.<n>We develop a traceability-oriented evaluation framework with five dimensions: report quality, evidence traceability, citation accuracy, claim verification, and answer correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T23:50:46Z)
• DRNOISE: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents in Misleading Evidence Environments [51.049999642138]
  We introduce DRNOISE, a 100-task benchmark for answer recovery under misleading evidence.<n>Each task has a unique gold answer supported by two corroborating indirect record chains; the paired noisy condition adds one plausible document that states a conflicting answer directly.<n>Across agents with strong clean-task performance, this single intervention causes 66-88 percentage-point accuracy drops.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-19T15:20:40Z)
• From Articles to Premises: Building PrimeFacts, an Extraction Methodology and Resource for Fact-Checking Evidence [27.242475349674155]
  PrimeFacts is a methodology for extracting fine-grained evidence from full fact-checking articles.<n>We compile 13,106 PolitiFact articles with claims, verdicts, and all referenced sources.<n>Our framework rewrites anchor sentences into stand-alone, context-independent premises.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T10:58:29Z)
• MEVER: Multi-Modal and Explainable Claim Verification with Graph-based Evidence Retrieval [14.150601513832724]
  We propose a novel model that jointly achieves evidence retrieval, multi-modal claim verification, and explanation generation.<n>We propose token- and evidence-level fusion to integrate claim and evidence embeddings for multi-modal verification.<n>Since almost all the datasets are in general domain, we create a scientific dataset, AIChartClaim, in AI domain to complement claim verification community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T17:44:57Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• Retrieving Versus Understanding Extractive Evidence in Few-Shot Learning [4.230202411425062]
  We analyze the relationship between the retrieval and interpretation of within-document evidence for large language model. We perform two ablation studies to investigate when both label prediction and evidence retrieval errors can be attributed to qualities of the relevant evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T20:48:09Z)
• Heterogeneous Graph Reasoning for Fact Checking over Texts and Tables [22.18384189336634]
  HeterFC is a word-level Heterogeneous-graph-based model for Fact Checking over unstructured and structured information. We perform information propagation via a relational graph neural network, interactions between claims and evidence. We introduce a multitask loss function to account for potential inaccuracies in evidence retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T14:10:40Z)
• Give Me More Details: Improving Fact-Checking with Latent Retrieval [58.706972228039604]
  Evidence plays a crucial role in automated fact-checking. Existing fact-checking systems either assume the evidence sentences are given or use the search snippets returned by the search engine. We propose to incorporate full text from source documents as evidence and introduce two enriched datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T15:01:19Z)
• Read it Twice: Towards Faithfully Interpretable Fact Verification by Revisiting Evidence [59.81749318292707]
  We propose a fact verification model named ReRead to retrieve evidence and verify claim. The proposed system is able to achieve significant improvements upon best-reported models under different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T03:23:14Z)
• Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims [64.81832149826035]
  We focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim. We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims. We show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-14T00:40:57Z)
• GERE: Generative Evidence Retrieval for Fact Verification [57.78768817972026]
  We propose GERE, the first system that retrieves evidences in a generative fashion. The experimental results on the FEVER dataset show that GERE achieves significant improvements over the state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-12T03:49:35Z)
• DialFact: A Benchmark for Fact-Checking in Dialogue [56.63709206232572]
  We construct DialFact, a benchmark dataset of 22,245 annotated conversational claims, paired with pieces of evidence from Wikipedia. We find that existing fact-checking models trained on non-dialogue data like FEVER fail to perform well on our task. We propose a simple yet data-efficient solution to effectively improve fact-checking performance in dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T17:34:35Z)
• Graph-based Retrieval for Claim Verification over Cross-Document Evidence [0.6853165736531939]
  We conjecture that a graph-based approach can be beneficial to identify fragmented evidence. We tested this hypothesis by building, over the whole corpus, a large graph that interconnects text portions by means of mentioned entities. Our experiments show that leveraging on a graph structure is beneficial in identifying a reasonably small portion of passages related to a claim.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T14:54:26Z)
• Topic-Aware Evidence Reasoning and Stance-Aware Aggregation for Fact Verification [19.130541561303293]
  We propose a novel topic-aware evidence reasoning and stance-aware aggregation model for fact verification. Tests conducted on two benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of the proposed model over several state-of-the-art approaches for fact verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T14:33:12Z)
• AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence [57.7091560922174]
  We present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. We analyze disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:40:08Z)
• Hierarchical Evidence Set Modeling for Automated Fact Extraction and Verification [5.836068916903788]
  Hierarchical Evidence Set Modeling (HESM) is a framework to extract evidence sets and verify a claim to be supported, refuted or not enough info. Our experimental results show that HESM outperforms 7 state-of-the-art methods for fact extraction and claim verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-10T22:27:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.