User-Centric Evidence Ranking for Attribution and Fact Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21387v1
• Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 08:23:26 GMT
• Title: User-Centric Evidence Ranking for Attribution and Fact Verification
• Authors: Guy Alt, Eran Hirsch, Serwar Basch, Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman,
• Abstract summary: Evidence Ranking is a novel task that prioritizes presenting sufficient information as early as possible in a ranked list.<n>This minimizes user reading effort while still making all available evidence accessible for sequential verification.<n>This work provides a foundational step toward more interpretable, efficient, and user-aligned information verification systems.
• Score: 12.059713949823335
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Attribution and fact verification are critical challenges in natural language processing for assessing information reliability. While automated systems and Large Language Models (LLMs) aim to retrieve and select concise evidence to support or refute claims, they often present users with either insufficient or overly redundant information, leading to inefficient and error-prone verification. To address this, we propose Evidence Ranking, a novel task that prioritizes presenting sufficient information as early as possible in a ranked list. This minimizes user reading effort while still making all available evidence accessible for sequential verification. We compare two approaches for the new ranking task: one-shot ranking and incremental ranking. We introduce a new evaluation framework, inspired by information retrieval metrics, and construct a unified benchmark by aggregating existing fact verification datasets. Extensive experiments with diverse models show that incremental ranking strategies better capture complementary evidence and that LLM-based methods outperform shallower baselines, while still facing challenges in balancing sufficiency and redundancy. Compared to evidence selection, we conduct a controlled user study and demonstrate that evidence ranking both reduces reading effort and improves verification. This work provides a foundational step toward more interpretable, efficient, and user-aligned information verification systems.

Related papers

• Multi-Sourced, Multi-Agent Evidence Retrieval for Fact-Checking [47.47518672198846]
  Misinformation spreading over the Internet poses a significant threat to both societies and individuals.<n>Previous methods rely on semantic and social-contextual patterns learned from training data.<n>We propose WKGFC, which exploits authorized open knowledge graph as a core resource of evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T19:29:01Z)
• Veri-R1: Toward Precise and Faithful Claim Verification via Online Reinforcement Learning [53.05161493434908]
  Claim verification with large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted growing attention, due to their strong reasoning capabilities and transparent verification processes.<n>We introduce Veri-R1, an online reinforcement learning framework that enables an LLM to interact with a search engine and to receive reward signals that explicitly shape its planning, retrieval, and reasoning behaviors.<n> Empirical results show that Veri-R1 improves joint accuracy by up to 30% and doubles the evidence score, often surpassing its larger-scale model counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T11:49:48Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• TrendFact: A Benchmark for Explainable Hotspot Perception in Fact-Checking with Natural Language Explanation [9.221637941193606]
  We introduce TrendFact, the first benchmark capable of evaluating hotspot perception ability (HPA) and all fact-checking tasks.<n> TrendFact consists of 7,643 curated samples sourced from trending platforms and professional fact-checking datasets.<n>We also propose FactISR, a reasoning framework that integrates dynamic evidence augmentation with influence score-based iterative self-reflection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T15:25:19Z)
• Multimodal Misinformation Detection using Large Vision-Language Models [7.505532091249881]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in various tasks. Few approaches consider evidence retrieval as part of misinformation detection. We propose a novel re-ranking approach for multimodal evidence retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T13:57:11Z)
• Information Association for Language Model Updating by Mitigating LM-Logical Discrepancy [68.31760483418901]
  Large Language Models(LLMs) struggle with providing current information due to the outdated pre-training data. Existing methods for updating LLMs, such as knowledge editing and continual fine-tuning, have significant drawbacks in generalizability of new information. We identify the core challenge behind these drawbacks: the LM-logical discrepancy featuring the difference between language modeling probabilities and logical probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T19:48:37Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• DeSePtion: Dual Sequence Prediction and Adversarial Examples for Improved Fact-Checking [46.13738685855884]
  We show that current systems for fact-checking are vulnerable to three categories of realistic challenges for fact-checking. We present a system designed to be resilient to these "attacks" using multiple pointer networks for document selection. We find that in handling these attacks we obtain state-of-the-art results on FEVER, largely due to improved evidence retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T15:18:49Z)
• Generating Fact Checking Explanations [52.879658637466605]
  A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-13T05:23:25Z)

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.