DARE: Dialectical Agentic Reasoning for Structured Knowledge Fact Checking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13808v1
• Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:41:52 GMT
• Title: DARE: Dialectical Agentic Reasoning for Structured Knowledge Fact Checking
• Abstract summary: Structured knowledge fact checking aims to determine the truthfulness of natural language claims by reasoning over structured evidence.<n>Recent program-generation approaches leverage large language models (LLMs) to generate executable graph reasoning programs.<n>We propose Dialectical Agentic Reasoning (DARE), a multi-agent framework that formulates structured knowledge fact checking as an iterative retrieve-reason-reflect process.
• Score: 12.74603871041188
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Structured knowledge fact checking aims to determine the truthfulness of natural language claims by reasoning over structured evidence. Recent program-generation approaches leverage large language models (LLMs) to generate executable graph reasoning programs, achieving strong performance on structured knowledge fact checking benchmarks. However, these methods remain limited by invalid relation generation, single-path reasoning that lacks self-correction, and biased evidence assessment that tends to overestimate supporting signals. We propose Dialectical Agentic Reasoning (DARE), a multi-agent framework that formulates structured knowledge fact checking as an iterative retrieve-reason-reflect process. DARE integrates relation-grounded evidence retrieval to constrain reasoning to valid structures, dialectical bidirectional verification to evaluate evidence from both supporting and refuting perspectives, and confidence-driven meta-reflection to dynamically determine whether additional evidence exploration is necessary. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of DARE in structured knowledge fact checking, with an 8B backbone achieving 88.12% accuracy and matching or surpassing GPT-4o-based program-generation baselines, which attests to the efficacy of dialectical agentic reasoning in eliciting the latent reasoning capabilities of LLMs.

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)
• Leveraging LLM Parametric Knowledge for Fact Checking without Retrieval [60.25608870901428]
  Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose the task of fact-checking without retrieval, focusing on the verification of arbitrary natural language claims, independent of their source robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T18:42:51Z)
• TRUE: A Trustworthy Unified Explanation Framework for Large Language Model Reasoning [0.2538209532048867]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in complex reasoning tasks, yet their decision-making processes remain difficult to interpret.<n>We propose the Trustworthy Unified Explanation Framework (TRUE), which integrates executable reasoning verification, feasible-region directed acyclic graph (DAG) modeling, and causal failure mode analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T17:00:54Z)
• Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification [49.506412445511934]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, yet their next-token prediction creates logical inconsistencies and reward hacking.<n>We introduce a formal logic verification-guided framework that dynamically interleaves formal symbolic verification with the natural language generation process.<n>We operationalize this framework via a novel two-stage training pipeline that synergizes formal logic verification-guided supervised fine-tuning and policy optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T07:01:25Z)
• 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)
• Abductive Inference in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models: Generating and Validating Missing Premises [0.0]
  We propose a framework that integrates abductive inference into retrieval-augmented LLMs.<n> Experimental results on abductive reasoning and multi-hop QA benchmarks show that our approach improves both answer accuracy and reasoning faithfulness.<n>This work highlights abductive inference as a promising direction for enhancing the robustness and explainability of RAG systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T03:37:24Z)
• Veri-R1: Toward Precise and Faithful Claim Verification via Online Reinforcement Learning [53.05161493434908]
  Claim verification with large language models (LLMs) has recently attracted growing attention, due to their strong reasoning capabilities and transparent verification processes.<n>We introduce Veri-R1, an online reinforcement learning framework that enables an LLM to interact with a search engine and to receive reward signals that explicitly shape its planning, retrieval, and reasoning behaviors.<n> Empirical results show that Veri-R1 improves joint accuracy by up to 30% and doubles the evidence score, often surpassing its larger-scale model counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T11:49:48Z)
• Reasoning Paths as Signals: Augmenting Multi-hop Fact Verification through Structural Reasoning Progression [12.437936654405211]
  Growing complexity of factual claims in real-world scenarios presents significant challenges for automated fact verification systems.<n>Existing approaches often rely on static or shallow models that fail to capture the evolving structure of reasoning paths.<n>We propose a Structural Reasoning framework that explicitly models reasoning paths as structured graphs throughout both evidence retrieval and claim verification stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T10:30:36Z)
• 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)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)

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.