What Do Claim Verification Datasets Actually Test? A Reasoning Trace Analysis

We present ThinknCheck, a 1B-parameter verifier for grounded claim verification that first produces a short, structured rationale and then a binary verdict. We construct LLMAggreFact-Think, a 24.1k reasoning-augmented training set derived from LLMAggreFact, and fine-tune a 4-bit Gemma3 model to follow this format. On LLMAggreFact, ThinknCheck attains 78.1 balanced accuracy (BAcc), surpassing MiniCheck-7B (77.4) with 7x fewer parameters; removing the reasoning step reduces BAcc to 57.5. On SciFact, ThinknCheck reaches 64.7 BAcc, a +14.7 absolute gain over MiniCheck-7B. By contrast, zero-shot chain-of-thought on the base Gemma3-1B harms accuracy relative to direct answers, and preference optimization with a simple format+accuracy reward underperforms supervised reasoning. To probe the latter, we introduce GSMClaims and a domain-specialized variant, ThinknCheck-Science, which improves across benchmarks, including 61.0% accuracy on GSMClaims. Overall, explicit, supervised reasoning enables compact verifiers that are competitive while remaining resource-efficient and interpretable.

Scientific claim verification, the task of determining whether claims are entailed by scientific evidence, is fundamental to establishing discoveries in evidence while preventing misinformation. This process involves evaluating each asserted constraint against validated evidence. Under the Closed-World Assumption (CWA), a claim is accepted if and only if all asserted constraints are positively supported. We show that existing verification benchmarks cannot distinguish models enforcing this standard from models applying a simpler shortcut called salient-constraint checking, which applies CWA's rejection criterion only to the most salient constraint and accepts when that constraint is supported. Because existing benchmarks construct infeasible claims by perturbing a single salient element they are insufficient at distinguishing between rigorous claim verification and simple salient-constraint reliance. To separate the two, we construct compositionally infeasible claims where the salient constraint is supported but a non-salient constraint is contradicted. Across model families and modalities, models that otherwise saturate existing benchmarks consistently over-accept these claims, confirming the prevalence of such shortcut reasoning. Via model context interventions, we show that different models and prompting strategies occupy distinct positions on a shared ROC curve, indicating that the gap between model families reflects differences in verification threshold rather than underlying reasoning ability, and that the compositional inference bottleneck is a structural property of current verification behavior that strategy guidance alone cannot overcome.

Claim verification splits between end-to-end classifiers that are accurate but yields no inspectable traces, and decomposition-based methods produce inspectable traces but lag performance on benchmark datasets. We propose DecomposeRL an accurate claim-verifier that produce inspectable traces. DecomposeRL frames decomposition as an RL policy trained with GRPO and a multi-faceted reward ensemble, enabling both fully supervised and semi-supervised learning from unlabeled claims. DecomposeRL addresses the prohibitive training cost of GRPO with a data-curation funnel that distills 115K fact-verification claims into a compact, learning-signal-dense subset of 5K claims. We show that a DecomposeRL-7B policy trained with full supervision on only ~5K curated claims achieves 86.3 in-domain and 69.8 out-of-domain balanced accuracy across 11 claim-verification benchmarks containing biomedical, political, scientific, and general-domain claims. Despite being 4x smaller, it matches 32B baselines and GPT-4.1-mini, and it further outperforms baselines in a semi-supervised setting with only 10% labeled claims data. Code, data, and models are available at https://dipta007.github.io/DecomposeRL