Beyond the Evidence Coherence Trap: Agent-Driven Evidence Selection for Temporally Disordered Fake News Detection

Temporal inconsistencies, such as mandates attributed outside their real interval, events presented as past before they occurred, or inverted causal sequences, are a form of political disinformation that evades style-based fake news detectors: a well-written article with a single wrong date carries no lexical signal of falsehood. This paper introduces the Temporal Coherence Score (TCS), a continuous, intrinsically interpretable metric that quantifies the temporal coherence of a news article, computed by a four-stage pipeline: extraction of temporal facts, construction of a temporal knowledge graph, hierarchical verification against internal consistency rules and external reference sources, and score aggregation with automatically generated explanations. Verification combines eight internal checkers derived from Allen's interval algebra with a five-level external hierarchy ranging from a locally stored reference knowledge base of 1{,}256 curated political facts to live Wikidata SPARQL queries. On a benchmark of 100 political news articles with injected temporal errors, the system reaches a precision of 0.909 at the selected operating threshold, with a single residual false positive, a profile deliberately tuned for human-in-the-loop fact-checking assistance, where false alarms are costlier than missed detections. Unlike lexical baselines that output only a binary label, every flagged article is accompanied by the inconsistency type, the entities involved, and the reference source that contradicts the claim.

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed fake news detection and fact-checking tasks from simple classification to complex reasoning. However, evaluation frameworks have not kept pace. Current benchmarks are static, making them vulnerable to benchmark data contamination (BDC) and ineffective at assessing reasoning under temporal uncertainty. To address this, we introduce LiveFact a continuously updated benchmark that simulates the real-world "fog of war" in misinformation detection. LiveFact uses dynamic, temporal evidence sets to evaluate models on their ability to reason with evolving, incomplete information rather than on memorized knowledge. We propose a dual-mode evaluation: Classification Mode for final verification and Inference Mode for evidence-based reasoning, along with a component to monitor BDC explicitly. Tests with 22 LLMs show that open-source Mixture-of-Experts models, such as Qwen3-235B-A22B, now match or outperform proprietary state-of-the-art systems. More importantly, our analysis finds a significant "reasoning gap." Capable models exhibit epistemic humility by recognizing unverifiable claims in early data slices-an aspect traditional static benchmarks overlook. LiveFact sets a sustainable standard for evaluating robust, temporally aware AI verification.

TRUST Agents is a collaborative multi-agent framework for explainable fact verification and fake news detection. Rather than treating verification as a simple true-or-false classification task, the system identifies verifiable claims, retrieves relevant evidence, compares claims against that evidence, reasons under uncertainty, and generates explanations that humans can inspect. The baseline pipeline consists of four specialized agents. A claim extractor uses named entity recognition, dependency parsing, and LLM-based extraction to identify factual claims. A retrieval agent performs hybrid sparse and dense search using BM25 and FAISS. A verifier agent compares claims with retrieved evidence and produces verdicts with calibrated confidence. An explainer agent then generates a human-readable report with explicit evidence citations. To handle complex claims more effectively, we introduce a research-oriented extension with three additional components: a decomposer agent inspired by LoCal-style claim decomposition, a Delphi-inspired multi-agent jury with specialized verifier personas, and a logic aggregator that combines atomic verdicts using conjunction, disjunction, negation, and implication. We evaluate both pipelines on the LIAR benchmark against fine-tuned BERT, fine-tuned RoBERTa, and a zero-shot LLM baseline. Although supervised encoders remain stronger on raw metrics, TRUST Agents improves interpretability, evidence transparency, and reasoning over compound claims. Results also show that retrieval quality and uncertainty calibration remain the main bottlenecks in trustworthy automated fact verification.