DiVA: Fine-grained Factuality Verification with Agentic-Discriminative Verifier

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03605v1
• Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2026 05:35:01 GMT
• Title: DiVA: Fine-grained Factuality Verification with Agentic-Discriminative Verifier
• Authors: Hui Huang, Muyun Yang, Yuki Arase,
• Abstract summary: Agentic Discriminative Verifier (DiVA) is a hybrid framework that synergizes the agentic search capabilities of generative models with the precise scoring aptitude of discriminative models.<n> Experimental results on FGVeriBench demonstrate that our DiVA significantly outperforms existing methods on factuality verification for both general and multi-hop questions.
• Score: 21.954389816004227
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite the significant advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs), their factuality remains a critical challenge, fueling growing interest in factuality verification. Existing research on factuality verification primarily conducts binary judgments (e.g., correct or incorrect), which fails to distinguish varying degrees of error severity. This limits its utility for applications such as fine-grained evaluation and preference optimization. To bridge this gap, we propose the Agentic Discriminative Verifier (DiVA), a hybrid framework that synergizes the agentic search capabilities of generative models with the precise scoring aptitude of discriminative models. We also construct a new benchmark, FGVeriBench, as a robust testbed for fine-grained factuality verification. Experimental results on FGVeriBench demonstrate that our DiVA significantly outperforms existing methods on factuality verification for both general and multi-hop questions.

Related papers

• HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam [63.84155758655084]
  Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models.<n>We introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy.<n>We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T02:50:15Z)
• PRIME: A Process-Outcome Alignment Benchmark for Verifiable Reasoning in Mathematics and Engineering [71.15346406323827]
  We introduce PRIME, a benchmark for evaluating verifiers on Process-Outcome Alignment verification.<n>We find that current verifiers frequently fail to detect derivation flaws.<n>We propose a process-aware RLVR training paradigm utilizing verifiers selected via PRIME.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:45:01Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• When Does Verification Pay Off? A Closer Look at LLMs as Solution Verifiers [11.937771430269201]
  We present a systematic study across 37 large language models (LLMs)<n>We compare self-verification with verification within the same family and across different families.<n>We analyze how metrics like verifier gain and false positive rate scale with model size and post-training, and characterize differences in dataset verifiability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T00:51:14Z)
• TrustLoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation for Failure Detection under Out-of-distribution Data [62.22804234013273]
  We propose a simple failure detection framework to unify and facilitate classification with rejection under both covariate and semantic shifts.<n>Our key insight is that by separating and consolidating failure-specific reliability knowledge with low-rank adapters, we can enhance the failure detection ability effectively and flexibly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T09:20:55Z)
• VerifiAgent: a Unified Verification Agent in Language Model Reasoning [10.227089771963943]
  We propose a unified verification agent that integrates two levels of verification: meta-verification and tool-based adaptive verification.<n>VerifiAgent autonomously selects appropriate verification tools based on the reasoning type.<n>It can be effectively applied to inference scaling, achieving better results with fewer generated samples and costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T04:05:03Z)
• When Claims Evolve: Evaluating and Enhancing the Robustness of Embedding Models Against Misinformation Edits [5.443263983810103]
  As users interact with claims online, they often introduce edits, and it remains unclear whether current embedding models are robust to such edits.<n>We introduce a perturbation framework that generates valid and natural claim variations, enabling us to assess the robustness of a wide-range of sentence embedding models.<n>Our evaluation reveals that standard embedding models exhibit notable performance drops on edited claims, while LLM-distilled embedding models offer improved robustness at a higher computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T11:47:32Z)
• 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)
• Thinking Racial Bias in Fair Forgery Detection: Models, Datasets and Evaluations [63.52709761339949]
  We first contribute a dedicated dataset called the Fair Forgery Detection (FairFD) dataset, where we prove the racial bias of public state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods.<n>We design novel metrics including Approach Averaged Metric and Utility Regularized Metric, which can avoid deceptive results.<n>We also present an effective and robust post-processing technique, Bias Pruning with Fair Activations (BPFA), which improves fairness without requiring retraining or weight updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T14:53:18Z)
• Model Stealing Attack against Graph Classification with Authenticity, Uncertainty and Diversity [80.16488817177182]
  GNNs are vulnerable to the model stealing attack, a nefarious endeavor geared towards duplicating the target model via query permissions. We introduce three model stealing attacks to adapt to different actual scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T05:42:31Z)
• Augmentation by Counterfactual Explanation -- Fixing an Overconfident Classifier [11.233334009240947]
  A highly accurate but overconfident model is ill-suited for deployment in critical applications such as healthcare and autonomous driving. This paper proposes an application of counterfactual explanations in fixing an over-confident classifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-21T18:53:16Z)

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.