ReflectFact: Self-Reflective Agents for Improving Comprehension and Reasoning in Multi-Hop Fact Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12877v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 06:41:56 GMT
• Title: ReflectFact: Self-Reflective Agents for Improving Comprehension and Reasoning in Multi-Hop Fact Verification
• Abstract summary: Multi-hop fact verification is critical for combating misinformation on social media.<n>Recent methods rely on multi-agent collaboration to decompose fact verification into specialized subtasks.<n>We propose ReflectFact, a novel self-reflective agent framework for multi-hop fact verification.
• Score: 10.886692231174358
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multi-hop fact verification, which verifies claims by reasoning over multiple pieces of evidence, is critical for combating misinformation on social media yet remains highly challenging. Recent methods primarily rely on multi-agent collaboration to decompose fact verification into specialized subtasks. However, these methods face two critical limitations: (1) agents may perform individual subtasks without sufficient awareness of the global verification objective, causing their reasoning to deviate from the intended direction; and (2) conflicts between parametric knowledge and the provided evidence may undermine evidence-grounded reasoning and lead to incorrect verdicts. To address these challenges, we propose ReflectFact, a novel self-reflective agent framework for multi-hop fact verification. ReflectFact introduces three key tasks. Explicit Reasoning Path Planning builds an evidence-grounded reasoning path by resolving implicit entities, decomposing the claim into sub-questions, and integrating the verified facts into a verdict. Evidence-Drift Verification makes the agent re-answer by quoting the supporting evidence when a grounded answer merely echoes its parametric prior, thereby calibrating evidence deviation to ensure grounded comprehension. Reasoning Reflection Verification re-examines each reasoning step and regenerates it once an inconsistency is detected, correcting reasoning flaws such as location bias and replacement bias through a global task perspective. Subsequently, the agent aggregates validated reasoning chains to yield reliable verdicts. Extensive experiments on HOVER and EX-FEVER demonstrate that ReflectFact effectively remedies the comprehension and reasoning defects of existing methods, achieving state-of-the-art performance and respectively outperforming the strongest baseline by 3.32\% and 2.78\% on the two datasets.

Related papers

• DRNOISE: Benchmarking Deep Research Agents in Misleading Evidence Environments [51.049999642138]
  We introduce DRNOISE, a 100-task benchmark for answer recovery under misleading evidence.<n>Each task has a unique gold answer supported by two corroborating indirect record chains; the paired noisy condition adds one plausible document that states a conflicting answer directly.<n>Across agents with strong clean-task performance, this single intervention causes 66-88 percentage-point accuracy drops.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-19T15:20:40Z)
• The Deliberative Illusion: Diagnosing Factual Attrition and Stance Homogenization in Multi-Agent LLM Deliberation [68.98390038721963]
  We show that multi-agent discussion erases up to 72% of issue-critical facts.<n>This loss is consequential: retained evidence can reconstruct the issue misleadingly, final stances remain anchored in base-model priors, and a single malicious agent can inject misinformation into the shrinking shared context.<n>We call for evaluations that measure which facts, uncertainties, and legitimate disagreements survive interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T02:15:40Z)
• AgentV-RL: Scaling Reward Modeling with Agentic Verifier [63.55502685076245]
  Verifiers have been demonstrated to enhance LLM reasoning via test-time scaling (TTS)<n>We propose Agentic Verifier, a framework that transforms reward modeling into a multi-turn, tool-augmented deliberative process.<n>We show that Agentic Verifier yields consistent performance gains under both parallel and sequential TTS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T12:27:36Z)
• 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)
• Exploring Health Misinformation Detection with Multi-Agent Debate [0.11470070927586014]
  We propose a two-stage framework for health misinformation detection.<n>In the first stage, we employ large language models (LLMs) to independently evaluate retrieved articles.<n>When this score indicates insufficient consensus-falling below a predefined threshold-the system proceeds to a second stage.<n>Multiple agents engage in structured debate to synthesize conflicting evidence and generate well-reasoned verdicts with explicit justifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-29T12:39:30Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.