Understanding before verifying: Claim normalization for automated citation verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30145v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 01:58:59 GMT
• Title: Understanding before verifying: Claim normalization for automated citation verification
• Abstract summary: Claim-Normalized Citation Verification (CNCV) is a new three-stage framework consisting of claim normalization, evidence retrieval with grounding, and citation classification.<n>We evaluate CNCV across 18 classifiers using a factorial experiment on human-annotated citation instances.
• Score: 6.671634770419851
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Citation accuracy has been studied for decades because of its importance to research reliability. Content-level citation verification assesses the reliability of scholarly claims. Recent work adopts a two-stage retrieval-classification framework inherited from fact-checking. However, this design overlooks the complexity of the raw citing claim and introduces three issues into the verification system, namely scope mismatch, perspective mismatch, and proposition entanglement. These issues increase the difficulty of retrieval and classification, thereby limiting model performance. Motivated by this gap, we propose claim normalization, which applies three rewriting strategies to the raw citing claim before retrieval and classification, allowing each downstream model to perform a single, well-defined task. Building on this method, we develop Claim-Normalized Citation Verification (CNCV), a new three-stage framework consisting of claim normalization, evidence retrieval with grounding, and citation classification. We evaluate CNCV across 18 classifiers using a factorial experiment on human-annotated citation instances. Compared with the prior two-stage framework, CNCV improves macro F1 by an average of 12% for encoders and 10% for generative LLMs, driven by improved evidence quality, the dominant factor identified in our experiments. Evidence retrieved from automatically normalized claims yields downstream classification performance statistically equivalent to that obtained with manually annotated evidence.

Related papers

• Context-Adaptive Requirements Defect Prediction through Human-LLM Collaboration [1.4499356176178066]
  We propose a Human-LLM Collaboration (HLC) approach that treats defect prediction as an adaptive process rather than a static classification task.<n>We evaluate this approach using the weak word smell on the QuRE benchmark of 1,266 annotated Mercedes-Benz requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T10:00:14Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• 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)
• JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
  We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z)
• AttributionBench: How Hard is Automatic Attribution Evaluation? [19.872081697282002]
  We present AttributionBench, a comprehensive benchmark compiled from various existing attribution datasets. Our experiments show that even a fine-tuned GPT-3.5 only achieves around 80% macro-F1 under a binary classification formulation. A detailed analysis of more than 300 error cases indicates that a majority of failures stem from the model's inability to process nuanced information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T04:23:33Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)
• Parametric Classification for Generalized Category Discovery: A Baseline Study [70.73212959385387]
  Generalized Category Discovery (GCD) aims to discover novel categories in unlabelled datasets using knowledge learned from labelled samples. We investigate the failure of parametric classifiers, verify the effectiveness of previous design choices when high-quality supervision is available, and identify unreliable pseudo-labels as a key problem. We propose a simple yet effective parametric classification method that benefits from entropy regularisation, achieves state-of-the-art performance on multiple GCD benchmarks and shows strong robustness to unknown class numbers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-21T18:47:11Z)
• Aggregating Pairwise Semantic Differences for Few-Shot Claim Veracity Classification [21.842139093124512]
  We introduce SEED, a novel vector-based method to claim veracity classification. We build on the hypothesis that we can simulate class representative vectors that capture average semantic differences for claim-evidence pairs in a class. Experiments conducted on the FEVER and SCIFACT datasets show consistent improvements over competitive baselines in few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T17:23:37Z)
• 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)
• Pre-training Is (Almost) All You Need: An Application to Commonsense Reasoning [61.32992639292889]
  Fine-tuning of pre-trained transformer models has become the standard approach for solving common NLP tasks. We introduce a new scoring method that casts a plausibility ranking task in a full-text format. We show that our method provides a much more stable training phase across random restarts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-29T10:54:40Z)

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.