DARE: Dialectical Agentic Reasoning for Structured Knowledge Fact Checking

Automated fact-checking remains a challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs) due to "query brittleness" in traditional retrieval systems. We propose DeLIVeR (Decomposed Learning for Information-grounded Veracity Recognition), a framework that treats evidence retrieval as a reinforced strategic exploration task. DeLIVeR utilizes a Planner LLM to decompose complex claims into targeted question sets, which are used to traverse structured Knowledge Graphs (KGs) for high-precision evidence. We optimize the Planner's policy using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a reward system prioritizing structural diversity and verdict accuracy. Our evaluation on LIAR, FEVER, and PolitiFact shows that DeLIVeR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Using Qwen2.5-7B, our framework achieved peak F1-scores of 83.73, 84.57, and 79.70 respectively, representing a 10-15% improvement over HippoRAG2. By shifting to a reinforced question-planning strategy, DeLIVeR effectively bridges multi-hop reasoning gaps and provides an auditable, transparent path for verifiable misinformation detection.

Misinformation spreading over the Internet poses a significant threat to both societies and individuals, necessitating robust and scalable fact-checking that relies on retrieving accurate and trustworthy evidence. Previous methods rely on semantic and social-contextual patterns learned from training data, which limits their generalization to new data distributions. Recently, Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) based methods have been proposed to utilize the reasoning capability of LLMs with retrieved grounding evidence documents. However, these methods largely rely on textual similarity for evidence retrieval and struggle to retrieve evidence that captures multi-hop semantic relations within rich document contents. These limitations lead to overlooking subtle factual correlations between the evidence and the claims to be fact-checked during evidence retrieval, thus causing inaccurate veracity predictions. To address these issues, we propose WKGFC, which exploits authorized open knowledge graph as a core resource of evidence. LLM-enabled retrieval is designed to assess the claims and retrieve the most relevant knowledge subgraphs, forming structured evidence for fact verification. To augment the knowledge graph evidence, we retrieve web contents for completion. The above process is implemented as an automatic Markov Decision Process (MDP): A reasoning LLM agent decides what actions to take according to the current evidence and the claims. To adapt the MDP for fact-checking, we use prompt optimization to fine-tune the agentic LLM.

Search-augmented LLM agents can produce deep research reports (DRRs), but verifying claim-level factuality remains challenging. Existing fact-checkers are primarily designed for general-domain, factoid-style atomic claims, and there is no benchmark to test whether such verifiers transfer to DRRs. Yet building such a benchmark is itself difficult. We first show that static expert-labeled benchmarks are brittle in this setting: in a controlled study with PhD-level specialists, unassisted experts achieve only 60.8% accuracy on a hidden micro-gold set of verifiable claims. We propose Evolving Benchmarking via Audit-then-Score (AtS), where benchmark labels and rationales are explicitly revisable: when a verifier disagrees with the current benchmark, it must submit evidence; an auditor adjudicates the dispute; and accepted revisions update the benchmark before models are scored. Across four AtS rounds, expert micro-gold accuracy rises to 90.9%, indicating experts are substantially more reliable as auditors than as one-shot labelers. We instantiate AtS as DeepFact-Bench, a versioned DRR factuality benchmark with auditable rationales, and DeepFact-Eval, a document-level verification agent (with a grouped lite variant) that outperforms existing verifiers on DeepFact-Bench and transfers well to external factuality datasets.