Diagnosing LLM Arbitration Behavior over Pre-evidence Epistemic States in RAG-based Fact-Checking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01120v2
• Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 05:09:52 GMT
• Title: Diagnosing LLM Arbitration Behavior over Pre-evidence Epistemic States in RAG-based Fact-Checking
• Abstract summary: In RAG-based fact-checking, LLMs are increasingly used as verifiers to check given claims against retrieved evidence.<n>We introduce textscPAVE (emphPrior-Aware Verifier Evaluation), a diagnostic testbed that stratifies an LLM verifier into four epistemic states.<n>Experiments reveal unreliable and highly model-dependent prior-context arbitration, highlighting the importance of verifier selection for real-world RAG-based fact-checking applications.
• Score: 14.164769475625391
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In RAG-based fact-checking, LLMs are increasingly used as verifiers to check given claims against retrieved evidence. Their parametric knowledge can induce pre-evidence tendencies that may conflict with the retrieved context, yet existing evaluation frameworks do not characterize such prior-context discrepancy or measure how verifiers arbitrate between parametric and contextual signals. We introduce \textsc{PAVE} (\emph{Prior-Aware Verifier Evaluation}), a diagnostic testbed that stratifies an LLM verifier into four epistemic states based on the correctness and confidence of its pre-evidence prior and evaluates its arbitration behavior on this new benchmark, i.e., whether it persists in correct prior under misleading evidence, and whether it corrects wrong prior when accurate evidence is provided. Experiments across seven LLMs reveal unreliable and highly model-dependent prior-context arbitration, highlighting the importance of verifier selection for real-world RAG-based fact-checking applications. Based on these findings, we propose a lightweight JSD-based test-time arbitration method that improves factual reliability without modifying the underlying model, achieving competitive performance across diverse LLM families.

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)
• Task-Conditional Faithfulness Auditing of Multimodal LLMs for Grid Diagnosis [5.427346259545067]
  Multimodal large language models (LLMs) can combine topology, measurements, and incident text for grid diagnosis.<n>This letter proposes a general framework in order to conduct task-conditional faithfulness audit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T15:17:15Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• Trust but Verify: Introducing DAVinCI -- A Framework for Dual Attribution and Verification in Claim Inference for Language Models [53.279391576560755]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable fluency and versatility across a wide range of NLP tasks, yet they remain prone to factual inaccuracies and limitation.<n>This poses significant risks in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and scientific communication, where trust and verifiability are paramount.<n>We introduce DAVinCI - a Dual Attribution and Verification framework designed to enhance the factual reliability and interpretability of LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T01:37:50Z)
• PAVE: Premise-Aware Validation and Editing for Retrieval-Augmented LLMs [8.082352336629816]
  PAVE is an inference-time validation layer for evidence-grounded question answering.<n>It decomposes retrieved context into question-conditioned atomic facts, drafts an answer, scores how well that draft is supported by the extracted premises, and revises low-support outputs before finalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T06:23:21Z)
• Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification [60.18369393468405]
  Existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration.<n>GLEAN compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals.<n>We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T09:36:43Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Towards Comprehensive Stage-wise Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Fact-Checking [64.97768177044355]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world fact-checking systems.<n>We present FactArena, a fully automated arena-style evaluation framework.<n>Our analyses reveal significant discrepancies between static claim-verification accuracy and end-to-end fact-checking competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T02:51:56Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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.