Large language models increasingly use search tools to retrieve up-to-date information, introducing a new attack surface in which retrieved documents can be manipulated. This risk is amplified by the development of generative engine optimization, which can make selected content more likely to be retrieved, cited, and adopted by models. Existing fact-verification benchmarks and evaluation frameworks do not provide the controlled evidence environments needed to assess robustness against GEO poisoning. We therefore propose GPE, which consists of a multi-domain fact-verification benchmark and an evaluation framework for controlling evidence sources and poisoning ratios. Experiments across multiple verification methods and poisoning attacks demonstrate that GPE exposes robustness degradation and efficiency trade-offs that cannot be observed through clean evaluation alone, confirming the need to evaluate fact verification under adversarial evidence environments.
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.
Search-augmented LLM agents are increasingly used for consumer decisions, making them vulnerable to Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) poisoning. Existing benchmarks largely measure whether manipulated content is retrieved or endorsed, but do not track whether an agent verifies suspicious evidence, revises adopted claims, or recovers before producing its final recommendation. We introduce HAE-GEO, a benchmark that tracks the full trajectory from exposure to recovery under progressively more persuasive Web poisoning. Agents interact via a multi-turn Search-Scrape interface across three attack levels (L1 direct assertion, L2 contextual camouflage, and L3 apparent corroboration), supported by a controlled corpus of 72,039 clean pages and 770 poisoned pages per level spanning 8 product categories and 154 brands. Evaluation combines deterministic behavioral measures with six semantic rubric dimensions. Evaluating 10 agents, we find three recurring patterns: evidence recognition degrades under the corroboration trap; agentic search improves final resistance without improving evidence recognition or utility; and defense prompting increases verification, yet rarely converts verification into recovery.
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.