Co-FactChecker: A Framework for Human-AI Collaborative Claim Verification Using Large Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13706v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 10:35:00 GMT
• Title: Co-FactChecker: A Framework for Human-AI Collaborative Claim Verification Using Large Reasoning Models
• Abstract summary: We propose Co-FactChecker, a framework for human-AI collaborative claim verification.<n>Co-FactChecker translates expert feedback into trace-edits that introduce targeted modifications to the trace.<n>Human evaluations show that Co-FactChecker is preferred over multi-turn dialogue.
• Score: 99.26398772227684
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Professional fact-checkers rely on domain knowledge and deep contextual understanding to verify claims. Large language models (LLMs) and large reasoning models (LRMs) lack such grounding and primarily reason from available evidence alone, creating a mismatch between expert-led and fully automated claim verification. To mitigate this gap, we posit human-AI collaboration as a more promising path forward, where expert feedback, grounded in real-world knowledge and domain expertise, guides the model's reasoning. However, existing LRMs are hard to calibrate to natural language feedback, particularly in a multi-turn interaction setup. We propose Co-FactChecker, a framework for human-AI collaborative claim verification. We introduce a new interaction paradigm that treats the model's thinking trace as a shared scratchpad. Co-FactChecker translates expert feedback into trace-edits that introduce targeted modifications to the trace, sidestepping the shortcomings of dialogue-based interaction. We provide theoretical results showing that trace-editing offers advantages over multi-turn dialogue, and our automatic evaluations demonstrate that Co-FactChecker outperforms existing autonomous and human-AI collaboration approaches. Human evaluations further show that Co-FactChecker is preferred over multi-turn dialogue, producing higher quality reasoning and verdicts along with relatively easier to interpret and more useful thinking traces.

Related papers

• Mitigating Perceptual Judgment Bias in Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge via Perceptual Perturbation and Reward Modeling [35.945096782147864]
  MLLM judges tend to reward plausible narratives over perceptually correct answers when visual evidence conflicts with textual cues.<n>We introduce the Perceptually Perturbed Judgment dataset, which constructs minimally edited counterfactual responses.<n>We develop a unified training framework that combines a structured GRPO-based reward with a batch-ranking objective, achieving coherent global ordering without explicit pairwise labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T17:59:46Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Multimodal Fact-Level Attribution for Verifiable Reasoning [80.60864342985748]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for real-world tasks involving multi-step reasoning and long-form generation.<n>Existing multimodal grounding benchmarks and evaluation methods fail to assess attribution in complex multimodal reasoning.<n>We introduce MuRGAt, a benchmark for evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in settings that require reasoning beyond direct observation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T03:10:02Z)
• 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)
• CMR-SPB: Cross-Modal Multi-Hop Reasoning over Text, Image, and Speech with Path Balance [10.843417240658992]
  Cross-modal multi-hop reasoning (CMR) is a valuable yet underexplored capability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs)<n>We argue that existing benchmarks for evaluating this ability have critical shortcomings.<n>We introduce a novel benchmark -- Cross-Modal Multi-Hop Reasoning over Text, Image and Speech with Path Balance (CMR-SPB)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T08:17:31Z)
• Detect, Explain, Escalate: Low-Carbon Dialogue Breakdown Management for LLM-Powered Agents [30.13634341221476]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming numerous applications, but their susceptibility to conversational breakdowns remains a critical challenge undermining user trust.<n>This paper introduces a "Detect, Explain, Escalate" framework to manage dialogue breakdowns in LLM-powered agents, emphasizing low-carbon operation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-26T07:51:05Z)
• Derailer-Rerailer: Adaptive Verification for Efficient and Reliable Language Model Reasoning [11.765298236504155]
  Derailer-Rerailer is a novel framework that balances reasoning accuracy and computational efficiency.<n>Our framework achieves significant accuracy improvements (8-11% across various reasoning tasks) while maintaining 2-3 times better efficiency than existing verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-25T21:20:17Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)
• I like fish, especially dolphins: Addressing Contradictions in Dialogue Modeling [104.09033240889106]
  We introduce the DialoguE COntradiction DEtection task (DECODE) and a new conversational dataset containing both human-human and human-bot contradictory dialogues. We then compare a structured utterance-based approach of using pre-trained Transformer models for contradiction detection with the typical unstructured approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-24T18:47:49Z)

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.