Fact in Fragments: Deconstructing Complex Claims via LLM-based Atomic Fact Extraction and Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.07446v1
• Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 05:49:43 GMT
• Title: Fact in Fragments: Deconstructing Complex Claims via LLM-based Atomic Fact Extraction and Verification
• Authors: Liwen Zheng, Chaozhuo Li, Zheng Liu, Feiran Huang, Haoran Jia, Zaisheng Ye, Xi Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Atomic Fact Extraction and Verification (AFEV) is a novel framework that iteratively decomposes complex claims into atomic facts.<n>AFEV achieves state-of-the-art performance in both accuracy and interpretability.
• Score: 18.20994425756688
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fact verification plays a vital role in combating misinformation by assessing the veracity of claims through evidence retrieval and reasoning. However, traditional methods struggle with complex claims requiring multi-hop reasoning over fragmented evidence, as they often rely on static decomposition strategies and surface-level semantic retrieval, which fail to capture the nuanced structure and intent of the claim. This results in accumulated reasoning errors, noisy evidence contamination, and limited adaptability to diverse claims, ultimately undermining verification accuracy in complex scenarios. To address this, we propose Atomic Fact Extraction and Verification (AFEV), a novel framework that iteratively decomposes complex claims into atomic facts, enabling fine-grained retrieval and adaptive reasoning. AFEV dynamically refines claim understanding and reduces error propagation through iterative fact extraction, reranks evidence to filter noise, and leverages context-specific demonstrations to guide the reasoning process. Extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets demonstrate that AFEV achieves state-of-the-art performance in both accuracy and interpretability.

Related papers

• Atomic Reasoning for Scientific Table Claim Verification [83.14588611859826]
  Non-experts are susceptible to misleading claims based on scientific tables due to their high information density and perceived credibility.<n>Existing table claim verification models, including state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), often struggle with precise fine-grained reasoning.<n>Inspired by Cognitive Load Theory, we propose that enhancing a model's ability to interpret table-based claims involves reducing cognitive load.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T02:46:22Z)
• 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)
• SUCEA: Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval for Adversarial Fact-checking through Claim Decomposition and Editing [30.84752573088322]
  adversarial claims are intentionally designed by humans to challenge fact-checking systems.<n>We propose a training-free method designed to rephrase the original claim, making it easier to locate supporting evidence.<n>Our framework significantly improves on both retrieval and entailment label accuracy, outperforming four strong claim-decomposition-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T02:58:15Z)
• Reasoning-CV: Fine-tuning Powerful Reasoning LLMs for Knowledge-Assisted Claim Verification [17.35114345065597]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT)-Verify paradigm generates CoT-verification paths for the original complex claim without requiring decompositions into sub-claims and separate verification stages.<n> Reasoning-CV demonstrates superior knowledge-assisted claim verification performances compared to existing Decompose-Then-Verify methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T10:28:54Z)
• CRAVE: A Conflicting Reasoning Approach for Explainable Claim Verification Using LLMs [15.170312674645535]
  CRAVE is a Conflicting Reasoning Approach for explainable claim VErification.<n>It can verify complex claims based on the conflicting rationales reasoned by large language models.<n>CRAVE achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T07:20:31Z)
• FactReasoner: A Probabilistic Approach to Long-Form Factuality Assessment for Large Language Models [59.171510592986735]
  We propose FactReasoner, a new factuality assessor that relies on probabilistic reasoning to assess the factuality of a long-form generated response.<n>Our experiments on labeled and unlabeled benchmark datasets demonstrate clearly that FactReasoner improves considerably over state-of-the-art prompt-based approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T19:01:48Z)
• FactLens: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Fact Verification [6.814173254027381]
  We advocate for a shift towards fine-grained verification, where complex claims are broken down into smaller sub-claims for individual verification.<n>We introduce FactLens, a benchmark for evaluating fine-grained fact verification, with metrics and automated evaluators of sub-claim quality.<n>Our results show alignment between automated FactLens evaluators and human judgments, and we discuss the impact of sub-claim characteristics on the overall verification performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T21:26:57Z)
• Atomic Fact Decomposition Helps Attributed Question Answering [30.75332718824254]
  Attributed Question Answering (AQA) aims to provide both a trustworthy answer and a reliable attribution report for a question. This paper proposes an Atomic fact decomposition-based Retrieval and Editing framework. It decomposes the generated long-form answers into molecular clauses and atomic facts by the instruction-tuned LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T05:25:54Z)
• TrendFact: A Benchmark for Explainable Hotspot Perception in Fact-Checking with Natural Language Explanation [10.449165630417522]
  We introduce TrendFact, the first hotspot perception fact-checking benchmark.<n> TrendFact consists of 7,643 carefully curated samples sourced from trending platforms and professional fact-checking datasets.<n>We propose FactISR, which integrates dynamic evidence augmentation, evidence triangulation, and an iterative self-reflection mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T15:25:19Z)
• Contrastive Learning to Improve Retrieval for Real-world Fact Checking [84.57583869042791]
  We present Contrastive Fact-Checking Reranker (CFR), an improved retriever for fact-checking complex claims. We leverage the AVeriTeC dataset, which annotates subquestions for claims with human written answers from evidence documents. We find a 6% improvement in veracity classification accuracy on the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:09:50Z)
• FactCHD: Benchmarking Fact-Conflicting Hallucination Detection [64.4610684475899]
  FactCHD is a benchmark designed for the detection of fact-conflicting hallucinations from LLMs. FactCHD features a diverse dataset that spans various factuality patterns, including vanilla, multi-hop, comparison, and set operation. We introduce Truth-Triangulator that synthesizes reflective considerations by tool-enhanced ChatGPT and LoRA-tuning based on Llama2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T16:27:49Z)
• WiCE: Real-World Entailment for Claims in Wikipedia [63.234352061821625]
  We propose WiCE, a new fine-grained textual entailment dataset built on natural claim and evidence pairs extracted from Wikipedia. In addition to standard claim-level entailment, WiCE provides entailment judgments over sub-sentence units of the claim. We show that real claims in our dataset involve challenging verification and retrieval problems that existing models fail to address.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-02T17:45:32Z)
• 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)

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.