Global Consistency Repair for Natural-Language Claim Sets

Decomposing compound sentences into atomic, verifiable claims is a prerequisite for reliable automated fact-checking. Prior work has relied on token-overlap (Jaccard) metrics that systematically underestimate decomposition quality for paraphrastic claims, and has lacked formal termination analysis for the repair loop. We present Credence, a revised claim decomposition and evaluation framework addressing both shortcomings. Our contributions are: (1) Semantic-F1: we use BGE-large cosine similarity fidelity metric that resolves Jaccard's penalisation and improves downstream fact-checking accuracy; (2) Convergence theorems: we formally characterise four properties of the repair pipeline, establishing that rule-based repair is monotone and finitely terminating under an oracle parser assumption; LLM-based self-repair is provably non-monotone and requires an early-exit guard; (3) Three evaluation benchmarks spanning social-media, encyclopaedic, and news domains for cross-domain generalisation measurement; (4) Multi-model benchmarking across four decomposer models (3.8B-12B) and a closed API model. Experiments on SocialClaimSplit, WikiSplitBench, and ClaimDecompBench show that Semantic-F1 outperforms Jaccard-F1 by +15-32pp. EPR ranges from 0.94 to 1.00 on SocialClaimSplit and WikiSplitBench, while ClaimDecompBench includes lower base EPR cases (down to 0.824) due to harder news-domain constructions, and rule-repair reduces the Atomicity Violation Rate (AVR) by 47-100% relative to the base model without degrading fidelity.

Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs). To enhance trust, natural language claims from diverse sources, including human-written text, web content, and model outputs, are commonly checked for factuality by retrieving external knowledge and using an LLM to verify the faithfulness of claims to the retrieved evidence. As a result, such methods are constrained by retrieval errors and external data availability, while leaving the models intrinsic fact-verification capabilities largely unused. We propose the task of fact-checking without retrieval, focusing on the verification of arbitrary natural language claims, independent of their source. To study this setting, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework focused on generalization, testing robustness to (i) long-tail knowledge, (ii) variation in claim sources, (iii) multilinguality, and (iv) long-form generation. Across 9 datasets, 18 methods and 3 models, our experiments indicate that logit-based approaches often underperform compared to those that leverage internal model representations. Building on this finding, we introduce INTRA, a method that exploits interactions between internal representations and achieves state-of-the-art performance with strong generalization. More broadly, our work establishes fact-checking without retrieval as a promising research direction that can complement retrieval-based frameworks, improve scalability, and enable the use of such systems as reward signals during training or as components integrated into the generation process.

We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR), a training-free framework that reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification. Since whole-trace evaluation often obscures decisive errors due to signal dilution from routine tokens, CLR condenses each reasoning trace into a compact set of decision-critical claims, thereby isolating its logical anchors. Furthermore, recognizing the inherent difficulty of generating entirely correct solutions under fixed model capabilities, CLR shifts the focus to semantic falsification. This approach exploits a fundamental asymmetry between solution construction and claim refutation. Constructing a valid solution requires a flawless reasoning path, whereas refuting an incorrect claim requires identifying only a single decisive flaw. This targeted search for negative evidence systematically compresses the survival space of high-confidence incorrect traces, effectively suppressing erroneous consensus via nonlinear reliability scoring. Across four LLMs and four reasoning benchmarks under matched budgets, CLR generally improves upon pass@1 and self-consistency. On GPT-OSS-20B/CMIMC25, for instance, CLR exceeds pass@1 by 27.15 percentage-points and raises self-consistency accuracy from 77.50% to 82.19% with 37.0% fewer tokens.