Case-Grounded Evidence Verification: A Framework for Constructing Evidence-Sensitive Supervision

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09537v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 17:55:38 GMT
• Title: Case-Grounded Evidence Verification: A Framework for Constructing Evidence-Sensitive Supervision
• Abstract summary: We introduce case-grounded evidence verification.<n>We train a standard verifier on the resulting support task.<n>Results suggest that a major bottleneck in evidence grounding is not only model capacity, but the lack of supervision.
• Score: 1.7044563989708406
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evidence-grounded reasoning requires more than attaching retrieved text to a prediction: a model should make decisions that depend on whether the provided evidence supports the target claim. In practice, this often fails because supervision is weak, evidence is only loosely tied to the claim, and evaluation does not test evidence dependence directly. We introduce case-grounded evidence verification, a general framework in which a model receives a local case context, external evidence, and a structured claim, and must decide whether the evidence supports the claim for that case. Our key contribution is a supervision construction procedure that generates explicit support examples together with semantically controlled non-support examples, including counterfactual wrong-state and topic-related negatives, without manual evidence annotation. We instantiate the framework in radiology and train a standard verifier on the resulting support task. The learned verifier substantially outperforms both case-only and evidence-only baselines, remains strong under correct evidence, and collapses when evidence is removed or swapped, indicating genuine evidence dependence. This behavior transfers across unseen evidence articles and an external case distribution, though performance degrades under evidence-source shift and remains sensitive to backbone choice. Overall, the results suggest that a major bottleneck in evidence grounding is not only model capacity, but the lack of supervision that encodes the causal role of evidence.

Related papers

• Evaluating and Improving Evidence-Grounded Fact-Checking in LLMs via Multi-Round Evidence Ablation [28.999694748110404]
  We show that off-the-shelf fact-checking systems rely more on their parametric knowledge than on the evidence provided.<n>We propose REAL (Rigorous Evidence Ablation Learning), a training framework that promotes evidence-dependent verification.<n>Our findings highlight that strong fact-checking performance can still coexist with weak evidence dependency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T16:04:20Z)
• Twin Worlds: Equivariance-Based Abstention for Evidence-Grounded Reasoning [38.63002496590365]
  We propose a framework for improving reliability in knowledge-intensive reasoning through equivariance-based abstention.<n>A key contributing factor is that entity mentions in context activate memorised associations, causing models to generate plausible responses ungrounded in evidence.<n>We construct multiple worlds via typed substitutions of the original input that preserve relational structure while reducing parametric priors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-28T07:33:29Z)
• 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)
• White Box Evidence Packages for Policy Audit Reports [0.0]
  We show that internal evidence changes how reports cite and reason about evidence, but more internal citations do not by themselves make a report more valid.<n>This study reframes internal model access as an evidence design problem for audit, rather than as a guarantee of transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T16:06:42Z)
• EG-VQA: Benchmarking Verifiable Video Question Answering with Grounded Temporal Evidence [48.314554375516366]
  This paper introduces the Evidence-Grounded Video Question Answering Benchmark (EG-VQA)<n> EG-VQA is comprised of 2,067 videos and 11,838 QA pairs with fine-grained evidence annotations.<n>We show that even strong proprietary models struggle to accurately ground their predictions.<n>We propose EG-Reasoner, an evidence-grounded reasoning model trained with explicit supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T16:49:28Z)
• 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)
• Retrieve-Refine-Calibrate: A Framework for Complex Claim Fact-Checking [32.6738019397553]
  We propose a Retrieve-Refine-Calibrate (RRC) framework based on large language models (LLMs)<n>Specifically, the framework first identifies the entities mentioned in the claim and retrieves evidence relevant to them.<n>Then, it refines the retrieved evidence based on the claim to reduce irrelevant information.<n>Finally, it calibrates the verification process by re-evaluating low-confidence predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T08:48:52Z)
• Look As You Think: Unifying Reasoning and Visual Evidence Attribution for Verifiable Document RAG via Reinforcement Learning [55.232400251303794]
  Look As You Think (LAT) is a reinforcement learning framework that trains models to produce verifiable reasoning paths with consistent attribution.<n>LAT consistently improves the vanilla model in both single- and multi-image settings, yielding average gains of 8.23% in soft exact match (EM) and 47.0% in IoU@0.5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:50:23Z)
• Evidence Tampering and Chain of Custody in Layered Attestations [0.0]
  In distributed systems, trust decisions are made on the basis of integrity evidence generated via remote attestation. We present algorithms for identifying all such tampering opportunities for given evidence as well as tampering "strategies" by which an adversary can modify incriminating evidence without being detected. Our efforts are intended to help protocol designers ensure their protocols reduce evidence tampering opportunities to the smallest, most trustworthy set of components possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T21:54:53Z)
• From Relevance to Utility: Evidence Retrieval with Feedback for Fact Verification [118.03466985807331]
  We argue that, rather than relevance, for FV we need to focus on the utility that a claim verifier derives from the retrieved evidence.<n>We introduce the feedback-based evidence retriever(FER) that optimize the evidence retrieval process by incorporating feedback from the claim verifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T02:59:38Z)
• Complex Claim Verification with Evidence Retrieved in the Wild [73.19998942259073]
  We present the first fully automated pipeline to check real-world claims by retrieving raw evidence from the web. Our pipeline includes five components: claim decomposition, raw document retrieval, fine-grained evidence retrieval, claim-focused summarization, and veracity judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T17:49:19Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.