AfrIFact: Cultural Information Retrieval, Evidence Extraction and Fact Checking for African Languages
Authors: Israel Abebe Azime, Jesujoba Oluwadara Alabi, Crystina Zhang, Iffat Maab, Atnafu Lambebo Tonja, Tadesse Destaw Belay, Folasade Peace Alabi, Salomey Osei, Saminu Mohammad Aliyu, Nkechinyere Faith Aguobi, Bontu Fufa Balcha, Blessing Kudzaishe Sibanda, Davis David, Mouhamadane Mboup, Daud Abolade, Neo Putini, Philipp Slusallek, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Dietrich Klakow
Organizations: Saarland University, Saarland Informatic Campus, Germany · Masakhane NLP · University of Waterloo, Canada · National Institute of Informatics, Japan · University College London, England · Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Maxico · University of Ilorin, Nigeria · Universidad de Deusto, Spain · Bayero University, Nigeria · University of Lagos, Nigeria · Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia · Black Swan · Universite Alioune Diop, Senegal · McGill University, Mila-Quebec AI Institute & Canada CIFAR AI Chair
Assessing the veracity of a claim made online is a complex and important task with real-world implications. When these claims are directed at communities with limited access to information and the content concerns issues such as healthcare and culture, the consequences intensify, especially in low-resource languages. In this work, we introduce AfrIFact, a dataset that covers the necessary steps for automatic fact-checking (i.e., information retrieval, evidence extraction, and fact checking), in ten African languages and English. Our evaluation results show that even the best embedding models lack cross-lingual retrieval capabilities, and that cultural and news documents are easier to retrieve than healthcare-domain documents, both in large corpora and in single documents. We show that LLMs lack robust multilingual fact-verification capabilities in African languages, while few-shot prompting improves performance by up to 43% in AfriqueQwen-14B, and task-specific fine-tuning further improves fact-checking accuracy by up to 26%. These findings, along with our release of the AfrIFact dataset, encourage work on low-resource information retrieval, evidence retrieval, and fact checking.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three steps for verifying factual claims are covered by our dataset. (A) information retrieval to find documents related to a claim, (B) extraction of sentence-level evidence supporting or refuting the claim, and (C) fact-checking using the claim, retrieved document, and extracted evidence with LLMs.
Dataset
# Lang.
# Native African Lang.
Domains
Tasks
X-FACT Gupta and Srikumar (2021)
25
0
News, Politics
Claim Verification
XFEVER Chang et al. (2023)
6
0
Wikipedia
Multilingual Claim Verification
MultiClaim Panchendrarajan et al. (2025)
78
1 (Sudanese)
Social Media, News
Claim Matching, Retrieval
Poly-FEVER Zhang et al. (2025a)
11
1 (Amharic)
Wikipedia, Scientific Articles
Multilingual Fact Verification
AfrIFact(ours)
11
10
Health, Culture(Wiki)-News
Fact Verification, Evidence Extraction, Information Retrieval
Table 1: Comparison of multilingual fact-checking datasets. We report the number of supported languages, number of African languages, domain coverage, and task types. AfrIFact focuses on African languages and introduces multilingual information retrieval, evidence extraction and claim verification across culturally grounded domains.
Figure 2: Illustration of the data construction process for AfrIFact-Health on shared health-data approach for lack of structured native health documents and AfrIFact-Culture-News culturally grounded, natively sourced data approach
Split
# Lang.
Total Split
Total
Train
Val
Test
Health
11
1100
550
7678
Culture & News
11
1228
550
7150
2328
1100
14828
18256
Table 2: Dataset statistics (train, validation, test) for AfrIFact-Health and AfrIFact-Culture-News across 11 languages. Detail data distribution in Appendix A .
Dataset
Metric
REFUTES
NEI
SUPPORTS
Health
Fleiss’ K.
0.74
0.79
0.82
Cohen’s K.
0.69
0.74
0.79
Krippendorff’s
0.74
0.79
0.82
Culture-News
Fleiss’ K.
0.82
0.83
0.83
Cohen’s K.
0.81
0.82
0.82
Krippendorff’s
0.85
0.85
0.85
Table 3: Agreement scores for English AfrIFact-Health and averaged per language for AfrIFact-Culture-News split. Detailed result found in the Appendix A .
Figure 3: nDCG@10 scores on the Health domain when retrieving from different corpora and evaluated on relevant documents in mono- or multi-languages. "A. Avg" shows the average score on African languages. Scores with label “mono” indicate that we only consider relevant documents from the same language as the query during evaluation.
model
English
Amharic
Hausa
Igbo
Oromo
Shona
Swahili
Twi
Wolof
Yoruba
Zulu
A-Avg.
Δ
AfrIFact-Health
multilingual-e5-large
0.149
0.123
0.113
0.119
0.138
0.141
0.189
0.107
0.105
0.133
0.171
0.134
-0.015
multilingual-e5-large-inst.
0.229
0.094
0.092
0.118
0.133
0.116
0.148
0.105
0.115
0.085
0.123
0.113
-0.116
AfriE5-Large-instruct
0.298
0.235
0.221
0.248
0.215
0.224
0.287
0.183
0.173
0.172
0.257
0.222
-0.077
Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B
0.171
0.065
0.070
0.106
0.111
0.073
0.112
0.098
0.111
0.081
0.082
0.091
-0.080
Qwen3-Embedding-4B
0.184
0.087
0.077
0.100
0.103
0.073
0.132
0.103
0.126
0.095
0.102
0.100
-0.084
Table 4: nDCG@10 of Information Retrieval Scores on Multilingual Corpus; A-Avg. column shows average score on African languages (i.e., excluding English); Δ column shows the score gap between A-Avg. English scores. gray marks on best A-Avg. scores.
model
English
Amharic
Hausa
Igbo
Oromo
Shona
Swahili
Twi
Wolof
Yoruba
Zulu
A-Avg.
Δ
AfrIFact-Health
multilingual-e5-large
0.770
0.363
0.415
0.349
0.386
0.450
0.541
0.333
0.418
0.288
0.438
0.398
-0.372
multilingual-e5-large-inst.
0.724
0.346
0.403
0.346
0.379
0.447
0.517
0.341
0.412
0.269
0.420
0.388
-0.336
AfriE5-Large-instruct
0.742
0.371
0.419
0.361
0.395
0.455
0.527
0.363
0.443
0.290
0.442
0.407
-0.335
Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B
0.782
0.305
0.370
0.275
0.340
0.368
0.474
0.298
0.397
0.244
0.362
0.343
-0.439
Qwen3-Embedding-4B
0.788
0.325
0.371
0.295
0.339
0.373
0.510
0.305
0.405
0.249
0.381
0.355
-0.433
Table 5: nDCG@3 evidence extraction performances across languages and domains in AfrIFact. A-Avg. The column shows the average score on African languages (i.e., excluding English); Δ column shows the score gap between A-Avg. English scores. gray shows the best A-Avg. scores.
Figure 4: Average accuracy scores on African languages of different language models on the AfrIFact fact-checking task under zero-shot and three-shot settings, with and without evidence. Left : AfrIFact-Health Right : AfrIFact-Culture-News
Model
Amharic
English
Hausa
Igbo
Oromo
Shona
Swahili
Twi
Wolof
Yoruba
Zulu
A-Avg.
AfrIFact-Health
Baseline
33.43 / 33.24
33.43 / 33.24
33.29 / 34.53
33.81 / 33.29
33.29 / 33.24
33.38 / 33.24
33.29 /34.96
33.29 / 33.24
33.33 /33.24
33.52 / 33.91
33.33 / 34.53
33.40 / 33.74
LoRA
49.14 / 63.94
49.00 / 59.41
47.85 / 61.41
46.78 / 56.92
48.21 / 58.74
48.50 / 58.93
48.42 / 62.85
37.25 / 40.59
38.18 / 42.26
46.92 / 59.22
48.28 / 60.46
45.95 / 56.53
QLoRA 8-bit
49.43 / 63.66
49.86 / 65.23
48.93 / 64.23
48.17 / 61.46
49.21 / 62.89
49.21 / 63.80
49.36 / 65.57
39.83 / 45.22
39.68 / 46.90
48.50 / 62.37
49.14 / 63.75
47.15 / 59.99
QLoRA 4-bit
39.30 / 50.96
34.38 / 35.96
36.29 / 49.04
35.34 / 44.84
36.06 / 44.17
36.44 / 44.41
37.06 / 49.43
33.38 / 34.96
33.33 / 34.53
38.78 / 49.76
37.06 / 50.38
36.30 / 45.25
Full Finetuning
33.31 / 33.24
33.74 / 33.48
33.31 / 33.24
33.31 / 33.24
33.31 / 33.24
33.31 / 33.29
33.31 / 33.29
33.31 / 33.24
33.31 / 33.24
33.31 / 33.24
33.31 / 33.24
33.31 / 33.25
Table 6: AfrIFact-Culture-News and AfrIFact-Culture-News without-evidence/with-evidence finetuning experiments on Baseline( AfriqueQwen-14B ) finetuned for mixed culture and health data processed for with and without setup. Training approaches include LoRA, QLoRA and full-finetuning
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
language
Amharic
English
Hausa
Igbo
Twi
Oromo
Shona
Swahili
Wolof
Yoruba
Zulu
Total
AfrIFact-Health
SUPPORT
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
284
3124
REFUTES
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
3113
NEI
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
3091
Total
848
848
848
848
848
848
848
848
848
848
848
9328
AfrIFact-Culture-News
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed distribution of annotated examples in the AfrIFact dataset across languages, domains, and verification labels. The table reports the number of instances labeled as SUPPORTS , REFUTES , and NOT_ENOUGH_INFORMATION (Not Enough Information) for each language in the AfrIFact-Health and AfrIFact-Culture-News domains.
Language
Class
Fleiss’ Kappa
Cohen’s Kappa (avg)
Krippendorff’s Alpha
Amharic
REFUTES
0.80
0.80
0.80
NOT_ENOUGH_INFORMATION
0.88
0.88
0.88
SUPPORTS
0.88
0.88
0.88
Yoruba
REFUTES
0.92
0.92
0.92
NOT_ENOUGH_INFORMATION
0.94
0.94
0.94
SUPPORTS
0.96
0.96
0.96
Appendix
Table 8: Inter-Annotator Agreement Metrics by Language and Category for AfrIFact-Culture-News , showing substantial to great agreement score.
Language
Family/branch
Region
# speakers
# chars in MADLAD (MB)
Swahili (swa)
Niger-Congo / Bantu
East & Central Africa
71M–106M
2,400MB
Hausa (hau)
Afro-Asiatic / Chadic
West Africa
77M
630MB
Amharic (amh)
Afro-Asiatic / Ethio-Semitic
East Africa
57M
509MB
chiShona (sna)
Niger-Congo / Bantu
Southern Africa
11M
266MB
isiZulu (zul)
Niger-Congo / Bantu
Southern Africa
27M
257MB
Igbo (ibo)
Niger-Congo / Volta-Niger
West Africa
31M
251MB
Appendix
Table 9: Languages represented in AfrIFact dataset. The table reports the language family and branch, geographic region, countries where the language is widely spoken, and the approximate number of speakers.
Language
Country
Gender Distribution (LC/Annotator)
Qualifications
Resides in Country
Amharic
Ethiopia
M / 2M1F
Linguistics, CS, Translation
✓
Hausa
Nigeria
M / 2M1F
Linguistics and translation
✓
Igbo
Nigeria
F / 1M2F
Language studies
✓
Twi
Ghana
F / 1M2F
Linguistics, education
✓
Oromo
Ethiopia
F/ 2F1M
Linguistics and journalism
✓
Shona
Zimbabwe
F / 2M1F
Language studies and translation
✓
Appendix
Table 10: Summary of annotator teams involved in the creation of the AfriFact dataset. For each language, we report the country context, gender of the language coordinator (LC), gender distribution of the three annotators, a summary of annotator qualifications, and whether annotators reside in the corresponding language region.
Model
English
Amharic
Hausa
Igbo
Oromo
Shona
Swahili
Twi
Wolof
Yoruba
Zulu
A-Avg.
Δ
Monolingual Corpus on Health
multilingual-e5-large
0.524
0.422
0.366
0.385
0.444
0.354
0.371
0.323
0.348
0.259
0.387
0.366
-0.158
multilingual-e5-large-inst.
0.629
0.426
0.372
0.438
0.476
0.384
0.517
0.420
0.464
0.313
0.433
0.424
-0.205
AfriE5-Large-instruct
0.593
0.431
0.394
0.431
0.449
0.412
0.525
0.391
0.408
0.301
0.424
0.417
-0.176
Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B
0.558
0.286
0.169
0.267
0.360
0.206
0.326
0.282
0.336
0.150
0.204
0.259
-0.299
Qwen3-Embedding-4B
0.546
0.326
0.233
0.274
0.341
0.212
0.363
0.325
0.394
0.208
0.262
0.294
-0.252
Appendix
Table 11: AfrIFact-Health nDCG@10 scores when retrieving queries from different corpus and evaluated on corresponding qrels.
Model
English
A-Avg.
Δ
Monolingual Corpus on Health
multilingual-e5-large
0.524
0.366
-0.158
multilingual-e5-large-inst.
0.629
0.424
-0.205
AfriE5-Large-instruct
0.593
0.417
-0.176
Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B
0.558
0.259
-0.299
Qwen3-Embedding-4B
0.546
0.294
-0.252
Appendix
Table 12: AfrIFact-Health nDCG@10 scores when retrieving queries from different corpora and evaluated on corresponding qrels. Table 11 reports results per-language.
Table 14: AfrIFact-Health 0-shot/3-shot Accuracy Scores. The best open source models are Bold, and the best overall models are grayed.
Model
Amharic
English
Hausa
Igbo
Oromo
Shona
Swahili
Twi
Wolof
Yoruba
Zulu
A-Avg.
AfrIFact-Culture-News With Evidence
AfriqueGemma-12B
36.10/39.10
45.70/57.70
36.10/44.50
33.70/36.70
35.60/39.00
37.30/48.20
32.00/34.20
31.10/32.30
37.40/36.70
33.60/35.50
34.10/43.40
34.70/38.96
AfriqueQwen-14B
33.50/77.00
35.40/99.90
37.60/77.10
31.80/78.40
32.80/80.80
37.50/76.80
36.60/71.80
30.60/61.10
38.60/44.70
34.00/74.60
36.80/70.10
34.98/ 71.24
Command R v01
42.80/39.20
53.60/92.80
37.50/47.10
32.60/46.30
33.00/57.50
38.70/43.50
39.10/58.20
31.30/48.90
38.60/42.60
37.60/41.70
43.80/47.10
37.50/47.21
Gemma-3-12B-it
61.60/65.10
82.60/86.40
59.50/63.10
58.10/60.70
47.60/53.60
51.00/63.50
56.40/57.80
45.60/50.70
39.40/44.50
49.80/52.70
54.40/57.00
52.34/56.87
Gemma-3-1B-it
35.00/33.70
35.20/54.70
38.10/37.00
31.80/38.70
32.80/38.00
37.70/33.60
36.30/30.80
30.70/33.80
38.70/37.20
35.10/36.90
37.50/32.70
35.37/35.24
Appendix
Table 15: AfrIFact-Culture-News 0-shot/3-shot Accuracy Scores. The best open source models are Bold, and the best overall models are grayed.
Figure 5: Why is evidence not helping improve accuracy? Evidence introduces a conservative shift in model predictions: in Health, it reduces hallucinated SUPPORTS but increases NOT_ENOUGH_INFORMATION predictions, while in Culture, it significantly improves NEI detection by reducing false Supports classifications. In the Health domain NOT_ENOUGH_INFORMATION and SUPPORTS improve while in the culture domain, the model tends to be good at identifying NOT_ENOUGH_INFORMATION when evidence is provided. In both domains, the model confusion between SUPPORTS and REFUTES improves with evidence provided.
Figure 6: Distribution of COMET scores for claim and document translations across African languages. The upper grid shows histograms of COMET scores for claim translations across ten languages, while the lower grid presents score distributions for document translations in five languages (Igbo, Oromo, Shona, Twi, and Wolof). This fixed or false alarm percentages items that has below 0.6 COMET scores colored red and addressed by annotators.
Figure 7: Distribution of COMET scores for document translations across African languages. This fixed or false alarm percentages items that has below 0.6 COMET scores colored red and addressed by annotators.
Figure 8: Example interface of the customized tool used for claim generation, showing an Amharic example.
Figure 9: Example of the customized annotation interface used for labeling claims in the claim labeling, showing an English example.
Automatic fact-checking poses a significant challenge in Arabic natural language processing due to the scarcity of datasets and resources. In this manuscript, we introduce Arafa, a new large-scale dataset for fact-checking in Modern Standard Arabic, constructed through an automated framework leveraging large language models (LLMs). The dataset was constructed through a three-step pipeline: (1) claim generation from Arabic Wikipedia pages with supporting textual evidence, (2) claim mutation to generate challenging counterfactual claims with refuting evidence, and (3) an automatic validation step to validate that the generated claims are either supported or refuted by their accompanying evidence, or if the evidence does not provide enough information to judge the validity of the claims. The resulting dataset comprises 181,976 claim-evidence pairs labeled as supported, refuted, or not enough information. Human evaluation carried out on a test sample from the dataset demonstrated strong inter-annotator agreement (kappa = 0.89) using Cohen's Kappa for supported claims and (kappa = 0.94) for refuted claims. Automatic validation based on a human-evaluated sample achieved 86% accuracy for supported claims and 88% for refuted ones. To showcase Arafa's value as a resource for automatic Arabic fact-checking, four open-source transformer-based models were fine-tuned using Arafa, with the top-performing model achieving a Macro F1-score of 77% on the test data. In addition to Arafa being the first large-scale dataset for Arabic fact-checking, our framework presents a scalable approach for developing similar resources for other low-resource languages.
Christophe Khalil, Shady Elbassuoni, Rida Assaf
Computer Science, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
We present a multilingual fact-checking system deployed at Factiverse, designed for high-throughput and low-latency operation across diverse languages. The system follows a modular pipeline with three stages: claim detection, evidence retrieval and re-ranking, and veracity prediction. We fine-tune XLM-RoBERTa-Large for claim detection, mmBERT-base for three-label stance classification (Supports/Refutes/Mixed), and a SetFit-based multilingual re-ranker for claim--evidence matching. We compare these components against strong LLM baselines, including GPT-5.2, Claude Opus~4.6, and Qwen3-8b. Experiments on production data spanning 114 languages for claim detection and 28 languages for veracity prediction show that task-specific fine-tuning provides strong and stable multilingual performance, while the fine-tuned retrieval model remains competitive with modern proprietary embeddings. Same-hardware latency measurements further show large efficiency gains for encoder-based components, supporting their use in production deployments with tight cost and privacy constraints. Overall, compact fine-tuned, self-hosted models remain a practical and effective foundation for multilingual fact-checking at scale. Code and data used for this study are available at https://github.com/factiverse/factcheck-editor.
Pratuat Amatya, Vinay Setty
Factiverse AS and University of Stavanger Stavanger, Norway
Existing real-world datasets for multimodal fact-checking have multiple limitations: they contain few instances, cover only one or two languages, focus on a single task, or rely on external news article sets to source true claims. To address these shortcomings, we introduce M4FC, a new real-world dataset comprising 4,982 images paired with 6,980 claims. The images, verified by professional fact-checkers from 22 organizations, represent a diverse range of cultural and geographic contexts. Each claim is available in one or two out of ten languages. M4FC spans six multimodal fact-checking tasks: visual claim extraction, claimant intent prediction, fake image detection, image contextualization, location verification, and verdict prediction. We provide baseline results for all tasks and analyze how combining intermediate tasks affects verdict prediction performance. We make our dataset and code publicly available.
Jiahui Geng, Jonathan Tonglet, Iryna Gurevych
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI), UAE · Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab (UKP Lab), Department of Computer Science, TU Darmstadt and National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE, Germany · Department of Electrical Engineering, KU Leuven, Belgium +2