Fact-verification benchmarks score the final label, while an interactive verifier must first decide whether the available evidence is sufficient. We focus on that intermediate Stop-or-Clarify Decision. Uncertainty alone is insufficient, because the benefit of another evidence-acquisition step is unknown before the step is taken. Sequential Experience-Adaptive Clarification (SEAC) wraps a fixed verifier with a lightweight evidence-acquisition policy. For each claim, SEAC retrieves evidence, runs the verifier, forms a label-free decision state, and combines stop risk with an observational clarification-utility estimate from earlier executed trajectories. Clarification is requested only when this score exceeds the action cost and decision threshold. On SciFact, LIAR, and FEVER, SEAC improves mean accuracy and macro-F1 over the compared fact-verification and active-retrieval baselines. Equal-budget and formula-level diagnostics support selective clarification as a contributor to the gain, while the small SciFact split leaves its paired improvement inconclusive.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SEAC framework overview. A fixed verifier predicts a label from the current evidence. The stop-or-clarify decision module estimates stop risk and clarification value, then either accepts the current label or executes one focused clarification step. Completed trajectories update later gain estimates.
Group
Method
SciFact
LIAR
FEVER
Accuracy / Macro-F1
Control
Random
.310 / .295
.323 / .301
.333 / .333
Retrieval-only
.400 / .288
.517 / .356
.332 / .242
Direct LLM
.453 / .439
.363 / .341
.556 / .544
Fact verification
MiniCheck
.363 / .310
.592 / .481
.553 / .489
BEVERS
.313 / .262
.602 / .481
.508 / .443
Table 1: Evaluation-set accuracy/macro-F1 comparison. Higher is better. This table reports final-label quality under the shared verifier and retrieval interface.
Table 2: Paired significance against the strongest non-oracle baseline. The table tests whether the main comparison reflects reliable paired prediction changes.
Data
B
SEAC Acc.
Best Active
Turn
SciFact
2
.713
.390
1.00 / .28
LIAR
1
.654
.592
1.00 / .50
FEVER
1
.640
.416
.64 / .60
Table 3: Equal-budget active comparison. B is the shared cap; Turn reports SEAC / best active. This table separates action allowance from action selection.
Figure 2: Focused SciFact diagnostics. Subfigure (a): clarification budget reaches early saturation rather than steady gains from repeated retrieval. Dashed budget points mark saturated reuse runs. Subfigure (b): threshold sensitivity exposes the role of the stop-or-clarify boundary; the best observed SciFact accuracy is reached without increasing average turn use.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Variant
Avg Turn
Guard changes
Arbitration
Refresh
Memory hits
Accuracy
Full SEAC
1.00
8%
3%
15%
68%
.713
No clarification
0.00
35%
22%
0%
62%
.340
No graph memory
0.03
28%
18%
0%
0%
.707
No uncertainty
0.00
12%
8%
14%
70%
.710
No experience
0.38
18%
10%
12%
0%
.297
No retrieval refresh
0.11
10%
5%
0%
66%
.700
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation-path audit. Percentages report how often non-clarification paths changed or supported the final decision.
Table 6: Extended equal-budget visualization. The main text reports the compact numerical comparison; this version adds the Pareto view and budget-effect summary.
δi bin
Mean δi
Acc. gain
n
Lowest 20%
-.12
-.04
120
20–40%
-.03
+.01
120
40–60%
+.05
+.03
120
60–80%
+.15
+.08
120
Highest 20%
+.32
+.14
120
Appendix
Table 7: Offline association between label-free trajectory utility and post-hoc label changes for 600 executed clarifications. Labels are used only for analysis, never for decision updates; the bins do not identify a causal clarification effect.
Transition
Count
Percent
Correct → Correct
145
48.3%
Wrong → Correct
52
17.3%
Correct → Wrong
18
6.0%
Wrong → Wrong
85
28.3%
Appendix
Table 8: SciFact clarification transition matrix used only for offline utility validation.
Dataset
Acc.
Std
Turn
Std
SciFact
.708
.018
1.00
.00
FEVER
.635
.015
0.64
.02
Appendix
Table 9: Online order robustness over five shuffled evaluation orders.
Progress
Accuracy
Mean gt
Turn
0–50
.58
.35
.95
50–100
.65
.48
.90
100–150
.70
.55
.88
150–200
.72
.58
.85
200–250
.74
.60
.83
250–300
.75
.62
.82
Appendix
Table 10: SciFact online progression over the evaluation stream.
Error type
SciFact
FEVER
LIAR
Wrong stop
28%
22%
35%
Unhelpful clarification
25%
28%
20%
Retrieval failure
20%
18%
15%
Experience mismatch
15%
18%
18%
Arbitration/guard error
12%
14%
12%
Appendix
Table 11: Quantitative error decomposition.
Dataset
Latency (s)
Retrieval calls
LLM calls
Tokens
Memory size
Turn
SciFact
2.8
1.8
2.0
820
3.8K
1.00
FEVER
2.4
1.5
1.9
750
4.1K
0.64
LIAR
2.6
1.9
2.0
890
4.5K
1.00
Appendix
Table 12: Runtime and interaction-cost diagnostics.
Open-search fact checking is not merely retrieval followed by classification, but a sequential decision problem in which every query, source visit, and stopping decision reshapes the evidence available for verification. Yet existing systems often distribute these decisions across predefined pipelines or separately prompted modules rather than learning them as a unified task-specific policy. We introduce OpenFC, a unified verification-policy training framework that post-trains Qwen3-8B as a compact next-action controller over reasoning, evidence acquisition, and stopping. OpenFC learns this policy in two stages. Stepwise-Calibrated Cold Start (SCCS) uses a strong training-time supervisor to review post-initial reasoning, tool-use, and stopping proposals before execution, producing reliable trajectories for supervised fine-tuning without access to gold verdicts. Verification-Aware Reinforcement Learning (VA-RL) then improves the cold-start policy on unresolved claims through budget-aware tool rewards, label-aware advantage reweighting, and localized response masking. Across six fact-checking benchmarks, OpenFC achieves 70.39% average accuracy and 63.30% macro-F1, the highest overall averages among the evaluated methods. Stage-wise ablations further show that SCCS and VA-RL provide complementary gains, supporting the design of the two-stage training framework. These results position OpenFC as a strong and effective framework for open-search fact-checking. We will open-source our code and release the model checkpoints to support reproducibility.
Xinming Wang, Kaixiang Qiu, Yansong Lin +5
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · Beijing Institute of Technology +1
Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong fact-checking accuracy, yet forced binary decisions conceal a critical reliability problem: systems may issue confident verdicts even when supporting evidence is weak, sparse, or internally inconsistent. We address this issue through Evidence Chain Evaluation (ECE), a selective fact-checking framework that permits abstention via an uncertain verdict instead of requiring a true/false decision for every claim. The evaluated system is a tool-using verification agent that gathers evidence through web search, scholarly search, and executable checks, and then returns a structured verdict with confidence and source-level metadata. On ECE-Bench, ECE achieves 91.6% standard accuracy, 93.7% coverage, and 97.8% selective accuracy on answered claims. Although ECE does not outperform the strongest retrieval baseline on aggregate calibration metrics such as Expected Calibration Error, Brier score, or AURC, it delivers a clear selective-prediction trade-off: the system maintains very high accuracy on answered claims while deferring 6 of 95 cases. These deferred cases are concentrated in lower-reliability evidence settings (5/6 at source level L4), supporting the view that abstention functions as a safety-oriented mechanism for handling epistemically weak evidence. Code is available at https://github.com/ cheshireyang/ECE.git
Long-form factuality verification is commonly implemented as a static decompose-search-verify pipeline, with separately prompted modules processing claims and invoking external search. Treating claims independently makes LLM and search calls scale with claim count and causes repeated searches for overlapping evidence about related claims. We introduce EAVer, an End-to-end Agentic Verifier that learns to control the complete response-level verification workflow as a unified policy. EAVer groups semantically related claims, routes each group to direct verification or targeted search based on confidence, and keeps evidence returned by search in compact in-context memos for cross-claim reuse. To train this policy, we develop a privileged-teacher synthesis pipeline that converts gold claim annotations into executable multi-turn tool-interaction trajectories with live search rather than post-hoc rationales. Structural, label-alignment, tool-use, search-budget, and leakage checks yield 1,447 quality-controlled trajectories. We further construct 794 bidirectional same-trajectory preference pairs that keep claim grouping, search, and evidence fixed, enabling decision-focused Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) over factuality-decision tokens. The results with Qwen3-8B show that EAVer outperforms the strongest search-based baseline on each benchmark by 2.88 Macro-F1 points on VeriFastScore and 4.73 points on the out-of-distribution FaStFact-Bench, while using about 80% fewer searches than the most search-efficient baseline. Moreover, EAVer consistently improves performance across models ranging from 4B to 32B parameters, demonstrating its strong generalizability.
Kening Zheng, Aoying Zheng, Zhigang Chang +21
University of Illinois Chicago · Taobao & Tmall Group · Shandong University +3