Professional fact-checkers rely on domain knowledge and deep contextual understanding to verify claims. Large language models (LLMs) and large reasoning models (LRMs) lack such grounding and primarily reason from available evidence alone, creating a mismatch between expert-led and fully automated claim verification. To mitigate this gap, we posit human-AI collaboration as a more promising path forward, where expert feedback, grounded in real-world knowledge and domain expertise, guides the model's reasoning. However, existing LRMs are hard to calibrate to natural language feedback, particularly in a multi-turn interaction setup. We propose Co-FactChecker, a framework for human-AI collaborative claim verification. We introduce a new interaction paradigm that treats the model's thinking trace as a shared scratchpad. Co-FactChecker translates expert feedback into trace-edits that introduce targeted modifications to the trace, sidestepping the shortcomings of dialogue-based interaction. We provide theoretical results showing that trace-editing offers advantages over multi-turn dialogue, and our automatic evaluations demonstrate that Co-FactChecker outperforms existing autonomous and human-AI collaboration approaches. Human evaluations further show that Co-FactChecker is preferred over multi-turn dialogue, producing higher quality reasoning and verdicts along with relatively easier to interpret and more useful thinking traces.
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
Grounded claim factuality checking is important for large language model (LLM) applications such as retrieval-augmented generation, as it helps users assess the correctness of generated outputs. Existing metrics using entailment classifiers require dataset-specific threshold tuning, while LLM-based approaches often use direct prompting, which underutilises the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We address this by formulating grounded claim factuality checking as a true/false reading comprehension task and prompting LLMs with explicit test-taking strategies for efficient reasoning. Our method reduces token usage by over 80% compared to unguided open-ended reasoning, and achieves competitive performance to more expensive alternatives across two factuality benchmarks, setting a new state of the art on one. To further reduce inference cost, we train small language models (SLMs) to replace LLMs in the checking pipeline. Using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and a self-revision mechanism, the SLMs learn to improve their factuality judgements. Experimental results show that the resulting SLMs perform on par with strong baselines, combining low inference costs with generating supporting rationales to support interpretability. Code and datasets will be released upon acceptance.
Automatic fact-checking systems assess the veracity of claims given evidence from relevant documents. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in fact-checking due to their general reasoning capabilities. However, it remains unclear whether they faithfully make use of the evidence provided to reach veracity judgments or rely on parametric knowledge. To investigate this, we introduce Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a new evaluation framework that iteratively ablates the cited evidence to assess whether LLMs revise their predictions accordingly. Our empirical results show that current off-the-shelf LLMs as fact-checking systems rely more on their parametric knowledge than on the evidence provided. To bridge this gap between prediction accuracy and evidence grounding, we propose REAL (Rigorous Evidence Ablation Learning), a training framework that promotes evidence-dependent verification through counterfactual evidence supervision for the LLM-as-verifier models. Experiments on four fact-checking datasets across different domains demonstrate that models trained with REAL obtain superior evidence-dependent capabilities compared to standard fine-tuned models. Our findings highlight that strong fact-checking performance can still coexist with weak evidence dependency, while REAL encourages veracity predictions to remain more closely tied to the availability of supporting evidence.