TRUST Agents is a collaborative multi-agent framework for explainable fact verification and fake news detection. Rather than treating verification as a simple true-or-false classification task, the system identifies verifiable claims, retrieves relevant evidence, compares claims against that evidence, reasons under uncertainty, and generates explanations that humans can inspect. The baseline pipeline consists of four specialized agents. A claim extractor uses named entity recognition, dependency parsing, and LLM-based extraction to identify factual claims. A retrieval agent performs hybrid sparse and dense search using BM25 and FAISS. A verifier agent compares claims with retrieved evidence and produces verdicts with calibrated confidence. An explainer agent then generates a human-readable report with explicit evidence citations. To handle complex claims more effectively, we introduce a research-oriented extension with three additional components: a decomposer agent inspired by LoCal-style claim decomposition, a Delphi-inspired multi-agent jury with specialized verifier personas, and a logic aggregator that combines atomic verdicts using conjunction, disjunction, negation, and implication. We evaluate both pipelines on the LIAR benchmark against fine-tuned BERT, fine-tuned RoBERTa, and a zero-shot LLM baseline. Although supervised encoders remain stronger on raw metrics, TRUST Agents improves interpretability, evidence transparency, and reasoning over compound claims. Results also show that retrieval quality and uncertainty calibration remain the main bottlenecks in trustworthy automated fact verification.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Baseline TRUST Agents architecture. A news article is processed through claim extraction, hybrid evidence retrieval, verification, and explanation generation to produce a final fact-check report.
Figure 2: Research extension of TRUST Agents. The system first decomposes the input into atomic claims, verifies each atomic claim using a multi-persona jury, aggregates the results with a logic-aware module, and produces a final report.
Model
Accuracy
Macro-F1
BERT (fine-tuned)
0.652
0.726
RoBERTa (fine-tuned)
0.641
0.726
GPT-4.1-nano (zero-shot)
0.580
0.528
Table 1: Performance of supervised and zero-shot baselines on the LIAR test set.
Pipeline
Uncertainty Mapping
Accuracy
Macro-F1
Original
none
≈0.19
≈0.19
Original
uncertain → false
0.485
0.428
Original
uncertain → true
0.520
0.434
Research
uncertain → false
0.495
0.363
Research
uncertain → true
0.520
0.444
Table 2: Performance of the original and research TRUST pipelines under different uncertainty mappings.
Explainable fake news detection aims to assess the veracity of news claims while providing human-friendly explanations. Existing methods incorporating investigative journalism are often inefficient and struggle with breaking news. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable leveraging externally retrieved reports as evidence for detection and explanation generation, but unverified reports may introduce inaccuracies. Moreover, effective explainable fake news detection should provide a comprehensible explanation for all aspects of a claim to assist the public in verifying its accuracy. To address these challenges, we propose a graph-enhanced defense framework (G-Defense) that provides fine-grained explanations based solely on unverified reports. Specifically, we construct a claim-centered graph by decomposing the news claim into several sub-claims and modeling their dependency relationships. For each sub-claim, we use the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) technique to retrieve salient evidence and generate competing explanations. We then introduce a defense-like inference module based on the graph to assess the overall veracity. Finally, we prompt an LLM to generate an intuitive explanation graph. Experimental results demonstrate that G-Defense achieves state-of-the-art performance in both veracity detection and the quality of its explanations.
Bo Wang, Jing Ma, Hongzhan Lin +4
School of Artificial Intelligence, Jilin University, China · Hong Kong Baptist University, China · Guangdong Institute of Smart Education, Jinan University, China +3
Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating fluent utterances but can lack reliable grounding in verified information. At the same time, knowledge-graph-based fact-checkers deliver precise and interpretable evidence, yet suffer from limited coverage or latency. By integrating LLMs with knowledge graphs and real-time search agents, we introduce a hybrid fact-checking approach that leverages the individual strengths of each component. Our system comprises three autonomous steps: 1) a Knowledge Graph (KG) Retrieval for rapid one-hop lookups in DBpedia, 2) an LM-based classification guided by a task-specific labeling prompt, producing outputs with internal rule-based logic, and 3) a Web Search Agent invoked only when KG coverage is insufficient. Our pipeline achieves an F1 score of 0.93 on the FEVER benchmark on the Supported/Refuted split without task-specific fine-tuning. To address Not enough information cases, we conduct a targeted reannotation study showing that our approach frequently uncovers valid evidence for claims originally labeled as Not Enough Information (NEI), as confirmed by both expert annotators and LLM reviewers. With this paper, we present a modular, opensource fact-checking pipeline with fallback strategies and generalization across datasets.
Shaghayegh Kolli, Richard Rosenbaum, Timo Cavelius +3
The rapid spread of fake news poses increasing threats to information ecosystems, especially as AI-generated misinformation under Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) poisoning allows adversarially crafted content to be systematically surfaced by retrieval systems, contaminating LLM reasoning. In this paper, we propose Tree of Evidence (ToE), a hierarchical evidence reasoning framework for automated fact-checking that models each claim as a dynamically expanding argument tree. ToE integrates a reinforcement learning-driven multi-source retrieval agent, an evidence evaluation agent, and an argument tree aggregation algorithm to iteratively decompose, retrieve, and verify claims through an explainable evidence chain. We further provide a theoretical analysis of the retrieval process, deriving a formal error bound that guarantees the learned policy converges to a neighborhood of the information-theoretically optimal policy. Experiments across multiple datasets and backbone LLMs demonstrate that ToE achieves improvements ranging from 4 to 24 percentage points over competitive baselines, with particularly pronounced gains on adversarially poisoned inputs.
Zhaoqi Wang, Zijian Zhang, Kun Zheng +4
School of Cyberspace Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology · TravelSky Technology Limited · School of Computer Science, University of Auckland