The paper evaluates the robustness of automated fact‑checking systems by cross‑benchmarking nine models—including random baselines, fine‑tuned transformers, zero‑shot LLMs, and top AVeriTeC 2025 systems—across four datasets from scientific, open‑web, and climate domains. It finds that fine‑tuned models outperform zero‑shot LLMs on ClimateCheck, that system rankings vary strongly with domain and metric, and that replacing retrieved evidence with gold annotations boosts veracity accuracy by 14–22 points, underscoring retrieval as the main bottleneck. The authors provide code, pre‑processed datasets, and results to enable reproducible research.
Automated fact-checking (AFC) systems retrieve evidence and predict claim veracity, yet evaluations omit simple baselines, systems are developed for a single benchmark and cannot be trusted to general...
R2VC is a modular fact‑checking system that separates retrieval, reasoning, verification, and confidence calibration. It uses hybrid sparse‑plus‑dense Wikipedia retrieval, a fine‑tuned generator for structured verdicts, an NLI cross‑encoder for selecting evidence‑based candidates, and a lightweight calibrator for confidence and abstention. On the FEVER benchmark, R2VC improves accuracy by 13.74% over a baseline and shows that verifier‑based candidate selection and calibration are key contributors to performance.
arXiv:2607. 18240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong fact-checking accuracy, yet forced binary decisions conceal a critical reliability problem: systems may issue confident verdicts even when supporting evidence is weak, sparse, or internally inconsistent.
The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.
arXiv:2511. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating fluent utterances but can lack reliable grounding in verified information.
arXiv:2608.30731v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Assessing claim check-worthiness is an essential first step in automated fact-checking pipelines. This work is motivated by a real deployment challen...
arXiv:2609.22223v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-form factuality verification is commonly implemented as a static decompose-search-verify pipeline, with separately prompted modules processing c...
arXiv:2606. 27383v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research assistants, yet it remains unclear whether they can calibrate research takeaways to the strength and scope of the supporting evidence.
The paper introduces EDB-Bio, a benchmark of 96,000 episodes drawn from real biological studies—drug‑perturbation transcriptomics, CRISPR screens, and GWAS—to test whether language models can weigh empirical evidence and predict hypothesis truth. Initial results show that both open‑weight and frontier models are systematically underconfident, matching a trivial base‑rate forecaster in Brier score, but post‑training with proper scoring rules improves calibration and discrimination. In a downstream experiment‑selection task, a calibrated model (Ibis0) outperforms the best frontier model by 2.5×, and Bayes‑factor analysis reveals how models update beliefs, align with expert relevance judgments, and expose biases.
arXiv:2609.00654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scien...
Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence. However, most existing static benchmarks risk contamination: they primarily consist of outdated claims verifiable using an LLM's internal knowledge without external evidence.
AMLworld-Compact introduces an importance‑weighted downsampling protocol for evaluating large language models on AMLworld’s test splits, retaining all illicit transactions while sampling benign ones from supervised‑score strata. The HT‑Coreset method reduces evaluation targets by 271× on HI‑Small and 611× on LI‑Small, providing unbiased confusion‑count estimates with exact recall and ratio estimates for precision and F1. Experiments with boosted‑tree strata and Graph Feature Preprocessor features show lower F1 RMSE compared to uniform sampling, and audit tools reveal that lexical checks do not reliably indicate correctness of model outputs.