CREDENCE: Claim Reduction for Decomposition & Enhanced Credibility -- Semantic Metrics and Convergence Analysis

Decompose-then-verify pipelines, including FActScore-style fact-checkers and long-form factuality evaluators, first split a passage into atomic claims before checking each one. Decomposition itself is treated as a neutral preprocessing step. We show it is not: a decomposer can be induced to substitute its own parametric belief for what the source passage says, producing a claim that contradicts the text it was supposed to summarize faithfully. We call this Decomposition-Induced Context-Memory Conflict (DI-CC) and show it is mechanistically the same phenomenon as classical context-memory conflict, occurring inside a different pipeline stage than prior work has examined. A linear probe trained only on classical context-memory conflict data (NQ-Swap), never exposed to any decomposition output, significantly separates decomposition positions that produce DI-CC from faithful decompositions (AUC = 0.86-0.88, permutation p < 0.0005). An existing reference-free baseline, SelfCheckGPT-style self-consistency sampling, fails to detect DI-CC at all (AUC 0.51, chance-level), because DI-CC content is stably recoverable and recurs across resamples, unlike the variability self-consistency methods rely on. Context-aware decoding, a training-free mitigation from the classical setting, transfers to decomposition and suppresses DI-CC, but at a severe cost: many decompositions under coreference-heavy conditions fail to parse, often because the decomposer fabricates a different identity. We do not consider this mitigation deployment-ready. We further characterize the mechanism's boundaries: its natural occurrence rate is too sparss not manifest on naturally-occurring hallucinatedtext, and it requires a minimum model scale to detecablish DI-CC as a real, mechanistically grounded, andpartially treatable failure mode, with a scope we chhan overstate.

Fact-checking systems built on LLMs achieve high verdict accuracy on standard benchmarks, yet routinely output Supports labels whose cited evidence does not license the claim. Structured decomposition is the natural way to inspect those warrants, but rigid extraction protocols strip the full-claim context that facets need. We introduce SIFT -- claim-conditioned re-scoring of extracted evidence spans against the full claim -- paired with WSP (Warranted Supports Proportion), an automatic NLI check that the cited warrant entails the claim. We evaluate on FEVER, SciFact, 5PILS, and DP across four open-source backbones. SIFT recovers accuracy on cells where naive decomposition costs up to 27.6 points, while raising WSP above direct prompting; WSP itself calibrates against human gold evidence at AUC 0.92 and precision 0.98.

The "decompose-then-verify" paradigm for LLM factuality evaluation faces a fundamental trade-off: atomic facts, i.e., one sentence conveying one unit of information, often omit essential context, while broader statements lack the granularity needed for precise assessment. To address this, we introduce TriQua, a framework that flexibly models facts based on their complexity. Simple claims are extracted as standard triples, while complex claims are represented as hyperrelational facts by attaching auxiliary contextual qualifiers. This adaptive structure preserves the necessary context for accurate retrieval and verification without sacrificing atomicity. Furthermore, TriQua's verification process directly annotates concrete errors within specific triples and qualifiers, providing fine-grained explainability for error detection. Alongside the framework, we propose TriQuaScore to quantify the factuality of these structured fact units. Empirical evaluations show that TriQuaScore strongly aligns with human annotated factuality scores, TriQua achieves robust decomposition quality, and outperforms existing decomposition-based frameworks in evidence-based fact verification.