Fact-Checking

We present a framework for evaluating data-science agents on live, continuously updated data using executable ground truth and format-agnostic factoid scoring. Consider this example query: "what were last week's audience sizes"---the reference answer changes as the underlying data changes, so static references become outdated and standard LLM-as-a-judge pipelines cannot verify responses against a fixed ground truth. Our central contribution, ground-truth-as-code, encodes each expected answer as an executable reference function that recomputes the answer directly from live data at evaluation time, ensuring the reference remains consistent with the system it describes. We combine this with a factoid-level, format-agnostic judge that decomposes both the agent's response and the computed ground truth into atomic claims and scores precision, recall, and accuracy over them, irrespective of the response format (prose, list, table, HTML, etc.). The approach is applicable to agents whose expected outputs can be expressed as executable data computations. We validate the framework through a human--LLM agreement study on an internally developed machine learning skill deployed in production, using a synthetic database constructed to reproduce production schemas and entity relationships. Relative to a natural-language ground-truth baseline, our method achieves a 29% improvement in the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)---a class-balanced measure of agreement between expert annotators and LLM-as-a-judge predictions---and a 16% reduction in token consumption per test case, while a self-directed baseline lacking explicit ground truth is anti-correlated with human judgment. Agents that perform multi-source data integration and computation over non-stationary data are routinely deployed in industry; we propose ground-truth-as-code as a practical methodology for their evaluation.

A medical claim's correctness often depends not on the claim alone, but on the clinical structure around it. A claim may require a lab reference range, a causal or conditional link, or patient-specific details to be judged correctly, and atom-level decomposition can fragment these dependencies, leaving the verifier with clinically incomplete claims. We reformulate medical fact-checking around snippet-level verification, where clause-grouped units preserve local clinical structure. We introduce MedSNIP-Bench, a human-annotated benchmark for snippet-level medical fact verification, and MedSNIP, an automatic snippet-generation pipeline. MedSNIP-Bench covers 276 consumer-health and clinical-vignette responses, segmented into 2,524 snippets with dual in-general and in-patient-context labels and six structural pattern codes. MedSNIP is evaluated against human snippet boundaries on MedSNIP-Bench and then used to generate snippet-level units for external corpora. Across MedSNIP-Bench, HealthFC, and MedHallu, snippet-level verification preserves or improves false-class F1, with gains concentrated where answers are long enough to fragment and where the verifier is strong enough to exploit the recovered structure. The largest merge-pattern gain is on causal-conditional clinical chains. It also reduces verifier calls by 24-73%, though the saving survives end-to-end only when decomposition is cheap, which an open-weight decomposer makes possible at no loss of chunking fidelity.

Large language models are increasingly used for automated fact checking, but end-to-end prompting often entangles evidence retrieval, reasoning, and uncertainty estimation, making failures difficult to diagnose and confidence difficult to trust. We present R2VC, a modular retrieve, reason, verify, calibrate architecture for evidence-grounded fact checking with citations and abstention. R2VC combines hybrid sparse+dense retrieval over Wikipedia, a supervised fine-tuned and DPO-aligned generator that produces diverse structured verdict candidates, an external NLI cross-encoder for evidence-based candidate selection, and a lightweight sequence-level calibrator for confidence estimation and selective abstention. On FEVER, an 8B backbone with R2VC achieves 13.74% higher accuracy than baseline. Ablation studies show that verifier-based candidate selection and confidence calibration are the largest contributors to performance. Removing candidate selection drops FEVER accuracy to 76.24%, while removing calibration nearly doubles the Brier score to 0.161. A manual analysis of 250 errors further shows that retrieval failures, especially wrong-entity evidence, remain the dominant bottleneck. Together, these results show that modular fact-checking pipelines can substantially improve both predictive accuracy and confidence reliability in open-domain verification.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a language model in retrieved documents, which reduces hallucination but creates a new attack surface: if retrieved text is tampered with, the model may repeat the falsehood. We study how much a small quantized model, Llama 3.1 8B, degrades when a fraction of its retrieved context is poisoned. Three corruption strategies are tested, entity swap, number swap, and negation, each applied to zero, one, two, or three of the three retrieved passages, over a factorial sweep of 588 runs on a fact-checking task built from FEVER. Accuracy falls from 77.9% on clean context to 43.5% when all three passages are corrupted. Entity swap flips the largest share of answers that were correct on clean context. Number-based corruption stays flat while poisoned passages are a minority and jumps once they form a majority, a pattern we re-check with query-level bootstrap intervals. The model rarely invents new falsehoods; its dominant reaction is to abstain, and a lexical overlap proxy of unsupported generation falls under attack rather than rising. The study is a small-scale measurement with coarse automated labels; we treat the strategy contrasts as suggestive until decoding is controlled and stronger adjudication is in place.

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.

Updating a language model's knowledge through fine-tuning is essential for keeping its outputs current, yet can also induce factual forgetting and new hallucinations. Prior work shows that long-tail knowledge is harder to acquire and newly memorized long-tail facts are difficult to retain during later fine-tuning. We study a complementary question: among facts that a model has encoded correctly, which are most vulnerable to collateral corruption during other updates? To investigate this question under a realistic factual distribution, we construct a large-scale graph FACTPROP of verified Wikipedia facts by linking triples that share head or tail entities, thereby preserving connections among factual knowledge. We fine-tune models on factual statements and measure correct-to-incorrect facts after each update. Our results reveal a pattern distinct from prior findings on long-tail vulnerability during acquisition and retention: among facts that models already answer correctly, those associated with highly connected entities are more likely to be corrupted by neighboring updates, and updates to such facts propagate errors more broadly. Structural popularity therefore predicts both vulnerability and downstream damage. Inspired by this finding, we propose Popularity-based Anchoring (PopAnchor), a lightweight rehearsal strategy that preserves a small set of popular facts and reduces forgetting.

A wrong number is worse than no answer. Across factuality-critical domains -- audience metrics, scheduling and rights in media; dosages and lab values in healthcare; figures and citations in finance and legal -- a confident but fabricated value is more damaging than an honest admission of uncertainty. Yet this is the dominant failure mode we observe on small local language models: even when correct evidence is present in context, models fabricate plausible numbers and timestamps. Recent work characterizes a real limit of this regime: below 7B parameters, the bottleneck of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is not retrieval quality but context utilization. We present Noesis, the deterministic-first query plane of the Noesis architecture, which makes every deterministic judgment before generation. Its mechanisms follow from the ingestion architecture (subject of a separate patent application): (a) a producer-side fact layer rendering precomputed metric facts verbatim without ranking; (b) positional addressing with deterministic cross-source alignment, resolved ahead of query time at zero LLM cost; (c) provenance scoping as an attribution constraint with multi-tier named-reference routing; and (d) two-tier context with model-triggered verbatim hydration. Across four ablations, a 2B model reaches parity with a 35B model on factual integrity (exact values in all runs; zero confabulated numbers on absent-entity traps); structured retrieval beats flat RAG by +11.4 points at 2B; skeleton-only context preserves quantitative answers at 20-30% smaller prompts; and hydration recovers verbatim narrative in ~8s versus ~29s. Two properties matter for regulated domains: each query resolves in a single generation call, and every reported value is traceable to its exact source and position by construction.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have achieved strong multimodal performance, yet ensuring the factual correctness of generated content remains challenging. Existing methods that provide statistical guarantees on factuality typically rely on external verifiers or generation-time confidence signals, which introduce auxiliary dependencies or often fail for confident but incorrect outputs. We argue that reliable factuality control can instead be achieved through introspective signals derived from the model itself. We introduce IntroConformal, a training-free Conformal Risk Control (CRC) framework that provides finite-sample, distribution-free factuality guarantees. We first instantiate it with layer-wise semantic stability, a conformity score derived from hidden-state representations, and then propose verification probability, a stronger score capturing the model's self-administered judgment on claim factuality. Across multiple LVLM architectures, IntroConformal satisfies the conformal risk guarantee while substantially reducing abstention and achieving competitive or superior claim-level discrimination relative to external verifier-based baselines.

Social media fact-checking has long been challenged by evidence-level and aggregation-level conflicts, where erroneous evidence mimics authoritative news sources. To capture this challenge and support conflict verification tasks, we present ContraNote, a large-scale real-world dataset curated from X's Community Notes system. It includes 33,686 posts for evaluating evidence-level conflict resolution, and 54,474 instances for evaluating aggregation-level prioritization. Additionally, we propose CoVer, a factual adjudication framework with three-stage pipelines: evidence schema normalization, factual consensus and support verification. This prioritizes evidence over noise to prevent it from compromising the final verdict. Technical evaluations show that CoVer achieves strong performance compared with state-of-the-art baselines across ContraNote (86.0% Acc., 68.0% mac. F1, 64.5 bal. Acc. on Conflict; and 88.5% Acc., 88.5 mac. F1 and 89.2 bal. Acc. on Prioritization), CONFACT-HumC (88.4% Acc.) and CONFACT-ModC (89.4% Acc.).

LLM-based factuality judges provide scalable evaluation signals, but their metrics are often systematically biased relative to human judgments. We study human-anchored factuality evaluation under limited annotation budgets, where judge predictions on the full dataset are combined with human labels on a small selectively sampled subset to obtain statistically valid estimates. The efficiency of this approach depends critically on which examples receive human annotation: in factuality evaluation, judge-human misalignment is not driven solely by low confidence, but also by structured failure modes such as incomplete evidence, temporal mismatch, unverifiable claims, and rubric misalignment. To exploit this structure, we introduce a factuality-specific annotation policy design pipeline that uses failure-space analysis (FSA) to derive diverse predictive signals for modeling human-judge misalignment. On an internal reference-based factuality evaluation system (AutoFA) and RAGTruth, where judge-predicted estimates substantially underestimate human-annotated factual accuracy, our FSA-guided policy improves annotation efficiency over uniform sampling and uncertainty-driven baselines, achieving effective-sample-size gains of 40.3% on AutoFA and 27.1% on RAGTruth.

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) trains a base language model to imitate target responses, and these targets may require knowledge the base model has not robustly internalized. We study this as a source of hallucinations and frame a group of mitigation methods as \emph{knowledge-aligned SFT}: constraining SFT training targets to the base model's parametric knowledge. Under a unified setup, we compare existing generation-based and estimation-based knowledge-alignment methods and introduce two new variants: Evidence Rewrite, which verifies base-model generations using external evidence, and Recall Rewrite, which retains claims only when they can be consistently recalled by the base model. Experiments with Qwen 3 4B and OLMo 3 7B show that knowledge-aligned SFT can reduce factual hallucinations on WildHalu and Biography while largely preserving general capabilities. Recall Rewrite yields the strongest factuality gains and improves refusal behavior on UnknownBench. It thereby confirms that SFT targets beyond the base model's knowledge drive hallucination behavior.

Assessing claim check-worthiness is an essential first step in automated fact-checking pipelines. This work is motivated by a real deployment challenge at an early-stage startup: running large language models (LLMs) over every incoming claim is cost- and latency-prohibitive, yet smaller models sacrifice accuracy. We propose NN-PPI, a pointwise extension of Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) that calibrates model predictions at inference time as a lightweight post-hoc layer, without re-training the underlying model. NN-PPI achieves weighted F1 gains ranging from 12% to 33.80% depending on the size and performance of the baseline model, bringing SLMs on par with larger LLMs. Beyond few-shot SLMs, NN-PPI further improves a production-deployed fine-tuned model, demonstrating that residual calibration is complementary to supervised fine-tuning. By recovering LLM-level accuracy from models that are an order of magnitude cheaper to serve, it makes accurate check-worthiness detection substantially cheaper to operate at scale. Our code and data can be found at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/arr-claim-worthiness-F237.

To effectively enable people to understand new topics, explanations should be tailored to their backgrounds and abilities. Prompting alone has been shown to be insufficient for creating such explanations, and other computational methods are missing so far. Therefore, this paper investigates whether LLMs can be steered to generate explanations that are tailored to a specific group of people. To this end, we propose an approach that first identifies group-specific attributes in terms of explanatory style and knowledge of a specific target group. Building on activation engineering, it then computes attribute-based steering vectors and adds them to the internal activations of an LLM during inference to enable a fine-grained steering. In our experiments, we assess the steering effectiveness in terms of specificity and factuality of the generated explanations. Additionally, we evaluate the explanations in a study with human experts from different target groups. Compared to prompting and state-of-the-art steering baselines, our approach tailors the explanations significantly better to the target group while maintaining the best specificity-factuality balance.

Humans naturally form and express beliefs in daily communication, e.g., "I think the answer is 3" or "I suppose that's right." Such beliefs inevitably intertwine with fact and knowledge, making the ability to handle them in tandem desirable for large language models (LLMs), as they are increasingly deployed in user-facing settings. Prior work showed that even capable LLMs exhibit a systemic weakness in acknowledging user beliefs grounded in incorrect information. We extend this evaluation to 10 LLMs across 18 epistemic expressions and find that the size and direction of this weakness depend on the verb used to express the belief, with the accuracy gap between factual and false information ranging from +50% on "I vaguely remember" to -14% on "I seriously doubt". We further show that the phenomenon stems from what we call task confusion: models default to fact-checking the underlying claim, overriding the user's stated belief. We provide evidence where chains of thought that explicitly fact-check show lower accuracy on false information than those that do not, and a single instruction can reverse the failure across verb families. Mechanistically, models attend more to false beliefs they fail to confirm, but suppressing this attention at decoding time recovers accuracy only partially and only in some models, calling for future work on intervention methods. Our findings clarify prior results and show how fact-checking, a generally desirable behavior, can interfere with belief tracking in LLMs.

Multi-hop fact verification, which verifies claims by reasoning over multiple pieces of evidence, is critical for combating misinformation on social media yet remains highly challenging. Recent methods primarily rely on multi-agent collaboration to decompose fact verification into specialized subtasks. However, these methods face two critical limitations: (1) agents may perform individual subtasks without sufficient awareness of the global verification objective, causing their reasoning to deviate from the intended direction; and (2) conflicts between parametric knowledge and the provided evidence may undermine evidence-grounded reasoning and lead to incorrect verdicts. To address these challenges, we propose ReflectFact, a novel self-reflective agent framework for multi-hop fact verification. ReflectFact introduces three key tasks. Explicit Reasoning Path Planning builds an evidence-grounded reasoning path by resolving implicit entities, decomposing the claim into sub-questions, and integrating the verified facts into a verdict. Evidence-Drift Verification makes the agent re-answer by quoting the supporting evidence when a grounded answer merely echoes its parametric prior, thereby calibrating evidence deviation to ensure grounded comprehension. Reasoning Reflection Verification re-examines each reasoning step and regenerates it once an inconsistency is detected, correcting reasoning flaws such as location bias and replacement bias through a global task perspective. Subsequently, the agent aggregates validated reasoning chains to yield reliable verdicts. Extensive experiments on HOVER and EX-FEVER demonstrate that ReflectFact effectively remedies the comprehension and reasoning defects of existing methods, achieving state-of-the-art performance and respectively outperforming the strongest baseline by 3.32% and 2.78% on the two datasets.

Evaluating detailed image captions from Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires going beyond surface-level semantic similarity. Reference-based metrics (e.g., CIDEr and SPICE) and LLM-as-scorer protocols struggle to verify dense factual claims, while existing QA-based alternatives generally offer lower probe density, narrower domain coverage, or no explicit alignment between individual questions and segmented image regions. We introduce CapProbe, a full-scene dense QA benchmark that turns detailed caption evaluation into region-aligned factual checking. Each image is decomposed into coarse semantic regions covering both foreground and background elements; for every retained region, we generate multiple-choice questions spanning 10 semantic categories, forming a dense checklist of probed visual facts. Guided by a two-tier taxonomy of 37 L1 domains and 219 L2 sub-domains, CapProbe comprises 346 images, 1,868 regions, and 25,650 questions, averaging 74 QA pairs per image. A language judge answers from the caption alone; an Uncertain option and Effective Accuracy provide a judge-dependent proxy for distinguishing unanswered probes from incorrectly resolved ones, while density-based metrics penalize verbose yet uninformative captions. The protocol is cost-effective: by converting unconstrained scalar scoring into structured MCQ reading, it reduces open-ended scoring bias while remaining judge-conditioned and yields relatively stable model rankings under a fixed reader. Experiments on 13 VLMs show large Coverage gaps across models, a clear competency-efficiency trade-off, and failure modes that sparse or overlap-based evaluation often misses. The benchmark data, annotations, and evaluation code will be released soon.

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.

Recent world-action models (WAMs) show that co-training policies with future prediction can provide physical priors for action generation. Building on the future-prediction ability of video models, many WAMs generate future videos and recover actions with inverse-dynamics models, or use these predicted videos as goal conditions for action generation. In both cases, the world model is trained mostly on successful demonstrations and has little reason to predict the consequences of bad actions. We introduce FACT, a causal World-Action Model that predicts future video and task progress conditioned on the executed action. This action-conditioned interface allows failure rollouts to supervise action consequences, turning bad actions into valid future targets rather than being discarded. Failure-aware training makes the progress predictor aware of both successful and failed action outcomes, which can optionally be used to score sampled action candidates at inference. Extensive experiments on simulation and real-world bimanual manipulation tasks show that FACT outperforms many existing baselines, improves as failure data are incorporated into training, and reduces success-biased future hallucination under bad actions. See more details at https://fact-wam.github.io/

Large language models (LLMs) have increasingly supported response generation grounded in user-provided knowledge spanning heterogeneous structures. However, existing benchmarks provide limited assessment of whether LLMs can faithfully perform multi-hop reasoning chains across such knowledge contexts while remaining robust to variations in their input order. We introduce TKFQA, a factuality consistency benchmark comprising 10,130 question-answering (QA) pairs grounded in tables, texts, and knowledge graphs (KGs). Each example is constructed from an explicit counterfactual reasoning chain, enabling the joint evaluation of answer correctness, reasoning-chain accuracy, and robustness to different input-order. An extensive evaluation of 14 open- and closed-source LLMs reveals that state-of-the-art models exhibit limited reasoning-chain accuracy and remain sensitive to variations in the input order of heterogeneous knowledge contexts. To address these limitations, we propose ORLF, an LLM-agnostic training framework that models cross-context topological relations through knowledge-specific latent vectors. ORLF integrates context-wise position encoding, a latent-bridge attention mask, and topological knowledge bias to preserve knowledge-specific bias and encode topological semantics. Experiments across four LLM backbones show that ORLF outperforms competitive training-free and LoRA-based baselines, improving average Exact Match and Reasoning-Chain Accuracy by 2.15% and 4.29%, respectively, while reducing order-induced performance standard deviation by 0.04% to 3.01%.

The reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is often compromised by factual inconsistencies, including hallucinations---cases where generated content is not supported by the underlying source. We present HallDetect, a lightweight, reference-free, and black-box framework for hallucination detection that we evaluate not only on summarization but across a broader range of source-grounded generation settings. HallDetect builds on decomposition-based factuality evaluation: generated content is decomposed into atomic claims, each verified by a compact encoder-based entailment model through a contrastive formulation over a multi-scale library of source chunks, and aggregated with an asymmetric score in which a single confidently contradicted claim flags the response. Under a controlled protocol in which all methods share the same 4-bit quantized backbones and consumer-grade hardware budget, HallDetect outperforms comparably resourced generative and embedding-based baselines on three of four benchmarks while remaining stable across backbone families, and yields a claim-to-span audit trail that localizes each error.

The proliferation of misinformation online has driven demand for scalable detection systems. While most existing approaches rely on surface-level linguistic features or external knowledge retrieval, we examine truthfulness as a geometric property of a language model's representation space. We introduce a misinformation detection framework grounded in activation engineering, which leverages the latent geometry of transformer models. Our approach elicits a misinformation direction in the residual stream by contrasting activations from paired truthful and false statements, following the difference-in-means principle of Contrastive Activation Addition (CAA). At inference time, the last-token activation of an unseen claim is projected onto this direction, and the projected representation is fed to an Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) for classification. The procedure requires no fine-tuning of the backbone model, no external evidence retrieval, and no task-specific supervision beyond the contrastive pairs used to estimate the direction. We evaluate the method across 11 models from the Gemma, Llama, and Qwen families, ranging from 270M to 12B parameters, on three fact-checking benchmarks: AVeriTeC, LIAR, and FACTors. The falsehood direction is recoverable across model scales and architectural families, and last-token projection matches or surpasses zero-shot and few-shot prompting baselines on LIAR and FACTors, with the largest gains observed for smaller models. Performance on AVeriTeC is more limited, which we attribute to its evidence-grounded labeling scheme. These findings provide evidence that truthfulness is a structured, linearly separable concept in the latent space of pretrained language models, and point toward interpretability-driven misinformation detection as a practical complement to retrieval-based pipelines. The code is available on https://github.com/Malta-Lab/LaFaCt.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored. This study presents the first systematic investigation of gender bias in LLM-based fake news detection using real-world data. We augment the LIAR benchmark with three gender variants of speaker job titles (Neutral, Male, Female) for each statement to test whether veracity judgments vary solely based on gender presentation. Six state-of-the-art LLMs are evaluated across multiple bias and fairness metrics. All models exhibit gender sensitivity: 9.79%-35.13% of statements receive inconsistent labels across the three variants, with Male-Female comparisons showing 6.5%-23.6% flip rates. Two primary bias manifestations are identified: instability (inconsistent judgments) and directionality (systematic favoritism). Five models show statistically significant directional effects, with the strongest effects displaying male-skeptic patterns. These findings demonstrate that gender bias undermines both reliability and fairness in LLM-based fake news detection, highlighting the need for bias-aware evaluation and mitigation strategies. The augmented dataset is publicly released to support future research.

AI systems rewrite information constantly: conversations become stored memories, documents become answers. The rewrite can keep a claim while washing away what made it checkable, who said it, how sure they were, when it held. We call that failure factwashing, and release factwash, an open-source write-time gate that catches it deterministically, with named flags and evidence rather than an LLM judge. Building it answers a practical question: when does a cheap check suffice, and when do you need a model? What decides is whether the property has a bounded surface-cue inventory. Explicit negation cues are close to enumerable, so a word list finishes and transfers, reaching 0.91 F1 on untuned text. Hedging and attribution have open-ended realizations, so vocabulary plateaus near half recall, and a one-question LLM witness recovers +17 and +15 points of cue-detection recall at equal precision. Deployed, that witness may only lower a verdict, so it buys precision rather than coverage. We measure cue detection on 105,596 independently annotated sentences. A blind-labelled corpus of memory writes then locates the failure: 55% of bad writes in conversational hearsay, 7% in business email (p < 0.001), so the first deployment question is not which detector to use but whether the failure occurs at all. On unmodified mem0 2.0.7, the gate flags 5 of 8 hedged-hearsay writes.

Large language model (LLM) judges are increasingly organized as multi-agent panels under the assumption that exchanging critiques improves judgment quality. We test this assumption for \emph{groundedness verification}, where a judge must determine whether a claim is supported by the supplied evidence. We evaluate a homogeneous three-agent panel on six public fact-verification and hallucination-detection benchmarks. Relative to a fixed single-agent reference, the panel's system-level accuracy difference ranges from $+8.5$ to $-4.4$ percentage points: two datasets show reliable gains, one shows a reliable loss, and three are statistically inconclusive. Because the reference and panel use different model variants, these differences characterize the complete systems rather than isolate a causal debate effect.

In this paper we present an active, constantly updated AI benchmark which measures the integrity of frontier language models against being co-opted for use by authoritarian state "information operations": intentional, coordinated activities by one state to influence public opinion and information ecosystems in another state. These information operations are a well documented, persistent threat against contemporary democracy. Our benchmark is based on real examples from over 2,100 information operations drawn from a live monitoring pipeline which tracks online information assets with links to authoritarian regimes. Alongside this paper, we also release a companion website that updates the benchmark weekly with new claims. The dynamic nature of this public facing benchmark makes it resistant to saturation. In the benchmark, we test 17 models from 8 providers across four prompt framings. We find that most models can be co-opted for information operations at least some of the time. Integrity scores, defined as the share of judged responses in which the model neither preserved nor amplified the claim, range from 9.3% to 91%, an 81.7-percentage-point spread not explained by model size. Models approach participation in information operations in a variety of ways. Some models fabricate details and produce output more harmful than the original input claim; others make claims less harmful even while complying and producing some output. Fact-checking rates vary from 3.2% to 80.8%. Integrity against information operations is at least partly related to refusal to produce content even for benign claims, illustrating the challenge of balancing model usability with safety. Overall, our results show the potential for contemporary information operations to be substantially aided by frontier AI models.

Speech deepfake detection has expanded in scope with increasingly heterogeneous spoofing mechanisms, including speech synthesis, voice conversion, vocoder reconstruction, and neural-codec resynthesis. The resulting spoofing artifacts can be further shaped by variability in source speech, recording environments, and transmission channels. This variability makes robust generalization across heterogeneous conditions a central requirement for practical detection systems. This report presents Teffic-Audio, a general speech deepfake detection system designed for comprehensive evaluation environment. Teffic-Audio adopts a straightforward detector architecture consisting of a Conformer-based speech encoder, multi-head attentive statistics pooling, and a binary classifier. Rather than relying on additional architectural complexity, the system improves generalization through its training recipe, which integrates multi-source data, attack- and source-balanced sampling, and diverse audio augmentation. Trained only with open-source data, Teffic-Audio achieves a pooled EER of 1.454% on the 14 test sets of Speech-DF-Arena, outperforming all currently public systems on the leaderboard. It also obtains the lowest EER on five individual test sets and shows a favorable performance-complexity trade-off compared with larger leading systems. Overall, Teffic-Audio provides a strong and practical reference system for general speech deepfake detection.

On standard factuality tasks, frontier models now cluster near the top of the scale. The question is therefore shifting from how factual a system is toward how much compute that factuality costs. Static leaderboards score factuality in isolation and treat compute as free, so they cannot tell a genuinely better system apart from one that simply spends more. Consider a ranking reversal. A brute-force Best-of-4 agent posts the higher raw factuality score (H-Score 0.9169 vs 0.9103) and would top a static leaderboard, but once cost is counted it is the worse system, losing on Q-Score (0.5169 vs 0.5217) at roughly four times the tokens and latency, under a reported cost weight whose sensitivity we sweep. So the system that tops a static leaderboard can be the worse one to deploy. To make this trade-off visible, we introduce MAS-HQ (Multi-Agent System Hallucination Quest), a resource-aware evaluation protocol. It wraps any factuality detector and normalizes for cost, and it pits systems against each other rather than scoring them in isolation. The Q-Score measures factuality minus normalized cost under a competitive match. Across summarization and open-domain QA, single-agent baselines drift into resource-heavy over-optimization, while competition elicits more resource-efficient policies. These gains are small but consistent, and stable across 100 trials. The axis stays discriminative for frontier systems (Gemini-2.5-Pro, and GPT-5) whose raw factuality scores are already bunched near the ceiling. MAS-HQ provides a reproducible way to measure how much a factual answer costs.

Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence. However, most existing static benchmarks risk contamination: they primarily consist of outdated claims verifiable using an LLM's internal knowledge without external evidence. This can inflate performance estimates and fail to reflect true capability on novel claims that require up-to-date information. To address this, emerging dynamic benchmarks collect claims published after LLMs' knowledge cut-off dates, assuming they are uncontaminated. This work revisits this assumption by empirically studying contamination risks in both the state-of-the-art (SOTA) static AVeriTeC benchmark and our newly constructed dynamic ClaimReview2025Q4 benchmark, as well as their impact on MAFC evaluation. Our experiments yield 16 findings, highlighting three key results: (1) Dynamic evaluation reduces but does not eliminate contamination risks, as 17.09%--29.30% of post-cut-off claims remain potentially contaminated; (2) Many newly published claims can be verified either directly or by synthesizing multiple pieces of public knowledge available before the cut-off; and (3) Contamination can induce statistically significant inflation in MAFC performance, increasing Macro-F1 by up to 11.34 points and distorting system rankings. In light of these findings, we re-evaluate SOTA LLMs under a strictly contamination-controlled setting. Our study provides practical guidelines for trustworthy MAFC evaluation.

Air-gapped and on-premises language-model agents can silently omit decision-critical facts at any boundary between source ingestion and final answer generation. We present a nine-layer taxonomy (L0-L8), an instrumented attribution harness, and a conditional omission waterfall that distinguishes deterministic software loss from behavioral non-retrieval. We analyze 75,476 controlled synthetic trials spanning five open-weight model configurations and two inference engines, together with a separate 372-trial real-agent pilot covering FHIR, PubMed, and SEC-EDGAR sources with LangChain and ADK orchestration. The weighted synthetic benchmark yields an omission rate of 0.574 (95% CI: 0.571-0.578); deliberately injected deterministic faults at L0-L3 account for 73.4% of weighted loss under the benchmark allocation. Increasing context length is most strongly associated with omission (odds ratio 7.43, 95% CI: 5.44-10.15). Completed server-profile analyses associate q4 KV cache and scaled RoPE with higher omission. In the real-agent pilot, 57.8% of traces are unsuccessful overall and 50.9% remain unsuccessful after excluding execution errors. These results establish pipeline-level attribution in a controlled stress test, but benchmark allocations, confounded model comparisons, and heuristic behavioral labels do not measure production prevalence or causal architectural effects.

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.

Rubric-based evaluation of open-ended generation faces a fundamental tension between expressiveness and reliability. Authoring a faithful rubric requires expressing the structure of the space of good answers: open-ended sets of acceptable options, ordered processes, and the relative importance of facts. Grading with the rubric requires a judge to score consistently, and judges are far more reliable on flat, binary checks than on rich structure. We resolve this tension with a two-level meta-rubric framework. A structured meta-rubric captures the grading criteria at authoring time, and fixed mechanical rules compile it into a flat checklist of binary, machine-gradable checks that an LLM judge scores reliably at evaluation time. We instantiate the framework as Gamut (Grounded Assessment of Multimodal Factuality), a benchmark for factual completeness in long-form generation. Gamut comprises 1,813 questions grounded in real wearable imagery across 10 diverse domains, each paired with an evidence-backed rubric verified by expert human annotators. Evaluating 14 frontier and open-weight models, we find Gamut genuinely challenging (best score 58.7% from Gemini 3.1 Pro), highly discriminative, and robust to the choice of judge.

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.

Large language models frequently violate fundamental scientific principles when generating technical content, undermining their reliability in scientific applications. We introduce Scientific Feasibility Control SFC, a graph-structured conformal prediction framework that provides statistical guarantees for scientific reasoning validity through progressive absolute-coherent-factuality validation. Our approach decomposes scientific reasoning into atomic absolute-coherent-factuality units requiring both individual correctness against physical laws and logical substantiation from preceding context, addressing the cascade effect where early scientific errors contaminate subsequent reasoning steps. Unlike independence-based methods that treat claims in isolation, SFC models logical dependencies as approximate deducibility graphs and operates through real-time validation with dynamic branching when scientific violations are detected, the system branches to alternative generation paths using verified context as foundation. We demonstrate SFC across established scientific reasoning benchmarks including PhyX multimodal physics, MATH, ScienceQA, and ARC Challenge, achieving 50.1 percent accuracy on PhyX physics reasoning, substantially outperforming recent reasoning models including DeepSeek-R1 49.8 percent and GPT-4 45.8 percent while providing 91.7 percent scientific validity with formal conformal coverage guarantees at alpha equals 0.10 confidence level and reducing scientific law violations by 73 percent across multiple model architectures.

Continual learning promises a language model that keeps acquiring knowledge after training, with each new fact written into its weights. Whether weight writes can support accumulation remains undecided. We follow invented facts written into Qwen3 models from creation through sequences of twenty to one hundred later writes, using held-out questions of five types, with the original model given the fact in its prompt as the reference. Across these experiments, the breadth of the training data determines the kind of knowledge created. Bare-statement training produces recitation, while diverse restatements reduce the recitation-to-use gap from 27.4 to 5.4 points without showing the model a conclusion. This difference carries into later writes: after twenty sequential writes, bare-statement facts retain 1% accuracy while facts written from broad study data retain 46%. We also find that facts can be behaviourally forgotten without being erased. Forgotten facts keep most of the log-probability added by their write, and under bare-statement training 70% of wrong answers about them contain the most recently written fact. The same writes barely degrade the model's use of facts in context, and a forgotten study fact supplied in the prompt recovers to 77-80% on its questions. These results describe knowledge that is stored but question-keyed: later writes redirect the questions that reached it. Damage to unrelated abilities tracks KL divergence from the original model, and the later writes cause interference regardless of how the earlier fact was stored. Broad data can create usable knowledge, and a frozen reference can preserve capability, but no intervention we tested, including those built on accurate local measurements of each write, keeps earlier facts reachable. When facts must be composed or survive later writes, the reliable channel is context rather than the weights.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising safety mechanism for AI agents, based on the premise that visible reasoning traces can surface misaligned or deceptive behavior. While effective in standard scenarios, recent work highlights that LLMs remain vulnerable to persuasion-based jailbreaks, where natural-language arguments override model constraints. We stress-test whether this vulnerability extends to monitoring LLMs: can an adversarial agent persuade its CoT monitor to approve proposed actions that violate the monitor's policy? We design an evaluation framework with 40 tasks and analyze thousands of agent-monitor interactions, where agents are instructed to argue for policy-violating proposals. We find that in such adversarial settings, monitor access to the agent's CoT reasoning increases rather than decreases approval of harmful actions on average by 9.5%, as the scratchpad provides an additional persuasion channel. To address this, we introduce a fact-checking monitoring framework. We find that a fact-checker and monitor pairing from different model families, for example a Claude 3.7 Sonnet monitor paired with a GPT-4.1 fact-checker, reduces approval of policy-violating actions by up to 45%, compared to only 6%, when using the same model for both fact-checking and monitoring roles. Our results demonstrate that CoT monitoring alone may be insufficient against adversarial persuasion, and that model-diverse fact-checking provides a robust mitigation.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) improve language model capabilities by generating explicit thinking traces before final answers. In factuality-oriented question answering (QA), such thinking often improves overall performance by helping the model recover relevant knowledge and refine its answers. However, we find that this benefit is not uniform at the instance level: explicit thinking can also overturn correct non-thinking answers and lead to factual drift. We refer to this failure mode as \emph{thinking-induced hallucination}. To explain this phenomenon, we formulate explicit thinking in factuality QA as a thinking residual over the model's direct-answer tendency, which can either recover missing knowledge or introduce unsupported associations. Based on this formulation, we propose MARGO, \underline{\textit{M}}ixed-Mode \underline{\textit{A}}dvantage \underline{\textit{R}}egularization for \underline{\textit{G}}rounded \underline{\textit{O}}ptimization, a reinforcement learning framework that uses non-thinking rollouts as same-model references in advantage estimation. By constructing mixed-mode rollout groups with both thinking and non-thinking trajectories, MARGO evaluates whether explicit thinking adds factual value beyond direct answering, thereby suppressing hallucination-prone thinking while preserving beneficial thinking behaviors. Experiments across multiple factuality-oriented QA benchmarks demonstrate that MARGO improves factual reliability over strong baselines, while evaluations on mathematical benchmarks show that it preserves general reasoning ability.

Public institutions increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to answer citizens' questions, often pairing a curated knowledge base with live web search, yet whether the sources behind these answers can be trusted has received little empirical scrutiny. We report a pre-launch expert evaluation of Evrópuvefur, an independent, government-funded service run by the University of Iceland that answers questions about the European Union, conducted as Iceland prepared for its referendum of 29 August 2026 on whether to resume EU accession talks. Five domain experts produced 551 evaluations of 449 AI-generated answers, scoring each against a seven-criterion quality rubric and, separately, flagging individual cited sources. We compared two retrieval paths: a curated local corpus (RAG) and open web search. In more than a third of the reviewed web-search answers (35%, 65 of 187), at least one cited source was flagged, almost always as untrustworthy or irrelevant; curated sources were flagged far less often and only for being out of date. Web search answered more questions, but at the cost of source quality; the curated corpus was trustworthy yet limited in coverage, and the model declined to respond when it fell short. The citation mix also passed over strong sources: across all 287 web-search answers, the system never cited RÚV, the public broadcaster and the country's most widely used news source. A companion prompt ablation shows how weak prompt-level steering is: a trusted-domain list in the system prompt raised the share of citations to listed domains only from 12% to 21%. Fluency and topical fit did not predict source trustworthiness. We argue that source trustworthiness is a measurable yet largely invisible dimension of information quality in public AI services, and we discuss transparency-oriented responses and their trade-offs.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves factuality by grounding LLMs in external evidence, but real-world retrieval is often polluted: semantically relevant passages may contain subtle misinformation, misleading framings, or fabrications. We introduce MIRAGE, a training-free, model-agnostic defense for long-form RAG. MIRAGE builds an NLI-based cross-document claim graph and applies a Defended-Claims Gate to either condition generation on a consistent, multi-source supported subset or to block retrieval and answer parametrically. We also release a minimal-edit pollution protocol spanning four perturbation families (Unambiguous, Conflicting, Misleading, Fabricated) to construct matched clean, mixed, and fully polluted evaluation regimes. Across four long-form QA benchmarks and multiple commercial and open-weight LLMs, pollution severely degrades vanilla RAG, while MIRAGE consistently restores factuality under mixed and fully polluted evidence and outperforms prior robust-RAG methods. Our implementation and datasets are available at https://github.com/SaadElDine/MIRAGE.

Web domain credibility evaluation is vital for combating misinformation. It is conducted by examining factors such as domain type, transparency, and overall reputation. However, assessing the credibility of newly emerging web domains remains challenging since they have no reputation yet. Expert fact-checkers evaluate the credibility of domains by analyzing the content of their articles, including the presence of misinformation, bias, or propaganda. Yet, the ease of large-scale content generation enabled by LLMs has accelerated the creation of new content, rendering manual assessment insufficient and underscoring the need for automated approaches to domain credibility evaluation. In this paper, we introduce our Domain Credibility Evaluation Framework (DCEF), a temporal framework for domain credibility evaluation grounded in expert ratings. DCEF enables us to investigate whether the credibility of web domains can be assessed from their published articles following the workflow of expert fact-checkers, without any prior knowledge of the source domains themselves.

LLM-based retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is increasingly used for automated fact-checking (AFC) and related tasks. By grounding LLM outputs in retrieved evidence, RAG-based systems provide transparent justifications while allowing external information to be updated independently of the underlying model. However, existing approaches often assume retrieved evidence is reliable, although real-world information may be conflicting, outdated, and can originate from unreliable or biased sources. Recent work on source-critical reasoning addresses this challenge through media background checks (MBCs) (Schlichtkrull, 2024), which assess the credibility of evidence sources to support downstream fact verification. However, generating MBCs relies on costly proprietary search APIs, limiting reproducibility. To mitigate this issue, we introduce MEDIAREF, a publicly available knowledge store of web-sourced documents that enables reproducible, low-cost evaluation of MBC generation across 200 media sources. We describe a reproducible methodology for constructing and updating the collection, assess widely used LLMs on the MBC generation task, and demonstrate that MEDIAREF supports higher-quality MBC generation through both automatic and qualitative evaluation.

Crowdsourced fact-checking systems have been adopted by major social media companies such as X, Meta, TikTok and Google with the aim of combating misleading information at scale without relying on centralized editorial control. These systems have been developed around a common underlying concept: a bridging mechanism that identifies notes flagging misleading information when they receive support from people with different perspectives rather than simple majority support. To our knowledge the only publicly disclosed bridging algorithms deployed for fact-checking are based on matrix factorization, as deployed by both X and Meta, augmented with additional components addressing abuse, targeted manipulation, and contributor brigades. This work examines the core matrix factorization portion of these systems, presenting theoretical and empirical evaluations of the degree to which coordinated users could vote strategically by leveraging the latent representations to fabricate the appearance of synthetic consensus within the bridging mechanism. Using historic production data, we find that up to 10.7% of lower quality notes could be manipulated above consensus thresholds using less than 10 ratings. We complement these findings with a theoretical analysis, revealing counterintuitively that rating a note as "Not Helpful" can increase its helpfulness score, as well as a cost model quantifying manipulation effort. We have developed and deployed mitigations within X's Community Notes algorithm to address synthetic consensus.

The proliferation of multimedia content on social platforms has fueled multimodal misinformation, where images are used to reinforce false claims. Consequently, Multimodal Fact-Checking (MFC) has emerged as an increasingly important research area. However, current progress is hindered by a reliance on synthetic training data and curated benchmarks that fail to capture the complexity of in-the-wild data. Furthermore, existing detection models rely on restricted intra-modality consistency or unconstrained all-to-all fusion, failing to capture nuanced relations between posts and external evidence. To address these limitations, we introduce X-POSE, a benchmark of real-world, community-annotated multimodal posts from X (formerly Twitter), augmented with full-length news articles retrieved via VLM-optimized search. Additionally, we propose TRENT, a novel MFC model that performs evidence triangulation using three parallel cross-attention streams alongside a relational fusion mechanism that explicitly models entailment and contradiction. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that TRENT consistently outperforms state-of-the-art specialized models and commercial VLMs. The code, prompt templates, and dataset are available at https://github.com/stevejpapad/evidence-triangulation

Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok. Since its introduction, there has been an open question about what role AI could play in scaling and optimizing the system. Recently, X extended its Community Notes system by introducing Collaborative Notes: notes initially drafted by an LLM and iteratively refined based on feedback from human contributors. In this work, we systematically analyze the complete corpus of 19,146 collaborative notes and 211,850 instances of human feedback. First, we develop a taxonomy of human suggestions for improving AI-generated note drafts and find that suggestions involving factual corrections and additional context are most likely to be incorporated, while subjective policy judgments rarely are. Second, we examine changes in helpfulness across versions of collaborative notes and find that human feedback leads to more helpful notes, with the greatest impact coming from suggestions that challenge the main claim in the previous draft, particularly when submitted by more active contributors. Finally, we find that although collaborative notes improve through human feedback, they reach helpful status and are shown on the platform at lower rates than human-only or AI-only notes, with limited human participation emerging as a key bottleneck. Nevertheless, rather than serving as a weaker substitute, collaborative notes tend to play a complementary role, predominantly targeting posts that do not attract human-only or AI-only notes. Our analysis provides an initial description of efforts to use AI to improve crowdsourced content moderation in a real-world moderation system and outlines pathways for future improvements to such features.

Hallucination is the reliability bottleneck for LLM-based agents, and fact attribution verifiers are the last line of defense -- yet today's verifiers emit only opaque binary labels, leaving agents unable to self-correct and operators unable to audit. We present SEVA, a structured verification agent that emits evidence alignments, step-by-step reasoning chains, calibrated confidence, and a six-category error diagnosis with actionable fixes. Training such an agent with RL is non-trivial: standard binary reward on multi-component output triggers advantage collapse -- within-group reward variance vanishes and the GRPO gradient disappears. We resolve this with a process reward that decomposes verification quality into five independent components weighted 70/30 toward process signals, restoring the gradient and inducing an implicit curriculum -- the agent first masters verification behavior (alignment 0.917 -> 0.997, format 72% -> 100%), then outcomes (F1 64.9 -> 69.0). Structured output further enables a Verify -> Reflect -> Probe -> Refine self-evolution loop, which over four rounds on a 7B model surfaces an unexpected structural finding: each round produces a benchmark-specialist, not a generalist (+15 pp on HaluEval, -10 to -14 pp on TruthfulQA in the same model, persistent at 4x data). On ClearFacts, SEVA-3B matches GPT-4o-mini (69.0 vs. 69.8 F1) while producing substantially richer, auditable output -- confirming a principle that should generalize: for any RL task with multi-component generation, reward granularity must match output granularity.

LLM agents carry conclusions across steps and sessions in compressed memory, and memory products (e.g., mem0, LangMem) rewrite conversation into stored "facts" that later steps trust. We show this rewriting manufactures confidence: across our constructed agent settings, a casual, hedged remark becomes a confident, dated assertion the agent then obeys like a verified fact, granting every above-clearance request it faces. No attacker is needed: a role that was true once and never corrected is stored as a flat fact and acted on like a deliberate injection. We then isolate what the agent responds to. It is not the source: attributed, unattributed, and even forged "system of record" claims all grant alike. It is the confidence of the phrasing. A hedge is discounted, a flat assertion is obeyed, and this holds with no special keyword. Not all hedges are equal, though: the evidential register is the least-discounted, with "reportedly" obeyed like a flat assertion on most models. The obvious fixes fail. A passive "unverified" tag is ignored, and an active "do not trust this" instruction escalates even correct memory, so it is safe only by refusing to decide. The real fix lives in the store: keep the tentative phrasing rather than upgrade it. But that is hygiene, not a defense against an attacker who can simply write a confident lie. The deployable lesson is narrower and constructive: a single load-bearing memory is the hazard, and one redundant source restores correct decisions. We release the harness and demonstrations.

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.

Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist. We introduce ConflictScore, a novel metric that quantifies how well a model's response acknowledges conflicting evidence in its grounding documents. Our framework decomposes responses into atomic claims, labels each claim against each grounding document, and then aggregates these labels into two complementary measures: ConflictScore-Count (CS-C), the proportion of claims exhibiting conflicts, and ConflictScore-Ratio (CS-R), the balance between supporting and contradicting evidence. We develop ConflictBench, a benchmark covering diverse forms of conflicts such as ambiguity, contradiction, and divergent opinions, to systematically evaluate our metric. Experiments show that ConflictScore effectively detects overconfident claims across domains and can serve as a corrective feedback mechanism that improves truthfulness on TruthfulQA.

In recent years, the posting of fake news including disinformation and misinformation on social networking services (SNS) has become a social problem. To combat this fake news, fact-checking that is the process of assessing the veracity of posts on SNS has become increasingly important. While fact-checking is currently performed by fact-checking organizations, it is difficult to fact-check all posts on SNS. Therefore, the use of automated fact-checking systems is effective. Recent automated fact-checking systems utilize artificial intelligence and large language models, so there are risks of incorrect judgments and posting incorrect results on social media which can lead to the spread of misinformation or to engage in defamation. In this paper, as a first step toward enabling the safe use of automated fact-checking systems, we categorize the specific risks on automated fact-checking systems. In this categorizing, we consider a three-stage risk propagation: risk factors, hazardous situations, and harm. Our analysis revealed that 32 specific risks exist in automated fact-checking systems. In this paper, we utilize the categorized risks as analytical cues (guide words) to present the risk assessment of the automated fact-checking system DEFAME. This assessment result indicates that risks that cannot be derived using STRIDE, a conventional IT security risk assessment method can be derived using our guide words.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) generate fluent long-form text, however, often add unsupported factual claims. Existing verification techniques improve factuality by grounding generation in external evidence. However, the same verification policy usually applies to all claims despite being differences in hallucination risks. We propose \textit{FACTOR} (\textit{FACTuality-Oriented Risk-aware Verification}), an inference-time model that adapts verification criteria according to claim-level uncertainty. FACTOR combines uncertainty estimation, adaptive language inference verification, and candidate re-ranking to allocate verification effort where it is most needed. We evaluate \textit{FACTOR} on FactScore benchmark showing that adaptive verification improves factuality while reducing verification cost simultaneously. We further perform different ablation studies to identify the primary driver of these gains. Our results show the effective and model-agnostic performance of \textit{FACTOR} for improving factuality in long-form generation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high stakes use-case. Prior hallucination evaluation work remains largely restricted to the biomedical domain, treats hallucination as a binary task, and has not examined the growing family of scientifically fine-tuned LLMs. We address these gaps with SciFactCheck, a benchmark of 2,500 prompts across five scientific domains, paired with a modular evaluation framework targeting three factuality hallucination types: unverifiability, overclaim, and attribution. Using a controlled minimal-pairing design, we evaluate 18 LLMs by comparing each scientifically fine-tuned model against its general-purpose base. Our results indicate that 1. Scientifically fine-tuned models exhibit degraded factual reliability across all hallucination types and scientific domains, and 2. Fine-tuned models are internally less confident yet linguistically more assertive. A human pilot study further reveals that current fact-checking tools show only modest agreement with expert judgments on scientific content, and that defining scientifically check-worthy claims remains contested even among human annotators. Our findings fundamentally challenge current methods of domain-specific fine-tuning for factuality and call for developing improved verification infrastructure for scientific content.

Decomposing compound sentences into atomic, verifiable claims is a prerequisite for reliable automated fact-checking. Prior work has relied on token-overlap (Jaccard) metrics that systematically underestimate decomposition quality for paraphrastic claims, and has lacked formal termination analysis for the repair loop. We present Credence, a revised claim decomposition and evaluation framework addressing both shortcomings. Our contributions are: (1) Semantic-F1: we use BGE-large cosine similarity fidelity metric that resolves Jaccard's penalisation and improves downstream fact-checking accuracy; (2) Convergence theorems: we formally characterise four properties of the repair pipeline, establishing that rule-based repair is monotone and finitely terminating under an oracle parser assumption; LLM-based self-repair is provably non-monotone and requires an early-exit guard; (3) Three evaluation benchmarks spanning social-media, encyclopaedic, and news domains for cross-domain generalisation measurement; (4) Multi-model benchmarking across four decomposer models (3.8B-12B) and a closed API model. Experiments on SocialClaimSplit, WikiSplitBench, and ClaimDecompBench show that Semantic-F1 outperforms Jaccard-F1 by +15-32pp. EPR ranges from 0.94 to 1.00 on SocialClaimSplit and WikiSplitBench, while ClaimDecompBench includes lower base EPR cases (down to 0.824) due to harder news-domain constructions, and rule-repair reduces the Atomicity Violation Rate (AVR) by 47-100% relative to the base model without degrading fidelity.

Tool-using LLM agents increasingly use the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to answer from heterogeneous evidence sources, including search, APIs, databases, clinical records, and formulary tools. Standard factuality metrics usually test whether an answer is supported by pooled evidence, missing a provenance-sensitive failure mode: a claim may be supported somewhere while being attributed to the wrong source. We call this cross-source conflation. We introduce ProvenanceGuard, a source-aware verifier for MCP-grounded answers. It consumes captured MCP traces with stable tool IDs, source IDs, and raw outputs; decomposes answers into atomic claims; routes claims to source-specific evidence; checks support with NLI and a token-alignment proxy; compares stated attribution with the routed source; and returns per-claim verdicts plus an answer-level allow/block decision. Blocked answers can be repaired with retrieval-augmented answer revision and re-verified. We evaluate on 281 medical-domain MCP-agent traces. A 266-trace adjudicated subset yields 2,325 LLM-assisted claim labels split by trace; 361 held-out labels are human-verified. On the 40-trace held-out split, ProvenanceGuard achieves block F1 0.802 and source accuracy 0.858 over 260 source-eligible claims, outperforming source-blind baselines that do not emit claim-to-source IDs. On a harder multi-source benchmark it reaches block F1 0.846, while source-plus-relation accuracy drops to 0.229, showing that exact source ownership remains difficult with semantically close sources. Repair-and-reverify resolves all blocked answers in the full trace set, often via conservative fallback. In 50 controlled clinical conflation probes, ProvenanceGuard detects all injected attribution swaps with no retained wrong attribution. These results show that source attribution is an independent axis for factuality verification in MCP-based agents.

Despite the significant advancement of LLMs in conversation summarization, their evaluation remains limited by insufficient scenarios, input lengths, and sample sizes. Furthermore, existing benchmarks often omit frontier reasoning systems and efficient small models, or lack fine-grained, multi-dimensional assessments. To bridge these gaps, we propose OmniCSEval, a unified benchmark comprising 1,800 diverse conversations across six real-world scenarios, featuring context lengths ranging from 128 to 32k tokens. For fine-grained evaluation, we employ a bidirectional fact-checking framework that integrates key fact matching to assess completeness and conciseness, alongside summary fact verification to evaluate faithfulness. To ensure reliable assessment, we establish a human-LLM collaborative pipeline for key fact extraction and a multi-LLM consensus verifier for summary fact decomposition. Leveraging this framework, we evaluate 28 LLMs across four distinct categories grouped by reasoning capability and model scale. Our extensive empirical study reveals critical insights regarding the cross-scenario challenges current LLMs continue to face, the impacts of reasoning and scale, and the efficiency and adaptability of reasoning models. We also provide guidance for system selection in real-world deployments.

Recent approaches combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with retrieval-augmented reasoning have shown promise for automated fact verification. To process complex claims, these verification pipelines typically execute multi-stage workflows that coordinate tightly coupled modules, including claim decomposition, evidence gathering, and verdict prediction. However, existing methods optimize individual stages in isolation or rely on fixed heuristics, which limits adaptive coordination among stages and can lead to suboptimal outcomes. In this work, we propose ProFact, an agentic reinforcement learning framework for end-to-end optimization of multi-stage fact verification trajectories. ProFact trains a unified policy to coordinate claim decomposition, evidence seeking, answer generation, and verdict prediction. To address the sparse and delayed supervision provided by final veracity labels, ProFact introduces process-aware rewards that provide stage-level learning signals throughout the verification process. Empirical evaluation shows that ProFact consistently outperforms strong baselines in both verification performance and inference efficiency. These results highlight the effectiveness of process-aware trajectory optimization for multi-stage fact verification.

Current Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit remarkable general capabilities but significantly underperform in spatial reasoning tasks. Existing approaches treat this gap as a knowledge deficit, relying on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to ingest labeled spatial data from external vision sources or synthetic engines. In contrast, we argue that for many tasks, spatial reasoning capabilities are already present in pre-trained LRMs but require alignment through logical coherence under geometric 2D and 3D constraints. In this work, we propose a self-supervised reinforcement learning (RL) framework that targets the internal reasoning process without requiring ground-truth annotations. By formalizing the notion of consistency verifiers -- reward functions that check for geometric and semantic consistency under transformations -- we demonstrate that models can improve their spatial reasoning abilities. We use both image transformations, like flipping, and textual transformations, like swapping the order of objects in the question, and propose a new optimal transport-based RL strategy, OT-GRPO, which is a minimal-matching variant of group relative policy optimization tailored to pairwise verifiers. We show that this label-free consistency training approaches the accuracy of models trained with ground-truth supervision and achieves similar generalization across diverse tasks and data domains.

Long-term action anticipation (LTA) aims to predict an ordered sequence of future verb-noun actions from a partially observed video. While this task serves as the foundation for embodied intelligence, anticipating physically feasible long-term actions remains a critical challenge. Existing methods, which operate in an open-loop manner, often hallucinate non-existent objects, violate object affordances, or disregard object states, as they lack explicit mechanisms to verify action feasibility against the physical environment. To address this, we propose FactCheck, a novel multi-agent collaboration framework that improves feasibility through a closed-loop "Observe-Plan-Verify" mechanism. FactCheck decomposes the complex LTA task into specialized roles: an Observer that recognizes historical actions from video observations and constructs a dual-form structured memory, comprising a History Action Abstract that captures high-level human intentions and environmental status, and a History Action Graph that encodes object states and temporal dependencies; a Planner that generates draft future actions conditioned on both low-level historical actions and high-level History Action Abstract; and a Verifier that rigorously validates the draft against the History Action Graph and refines infeasible actions. Extensive experiments on the EPIC-Kitchens-55 and EGTEA Gaze+ benchmarks demonstrate that FactCheck consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Our work establishes a new paradigm for feasibility-aware long-term action anticipation, effectively closing the loop of action recognition, action prediction and action verification.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly perform multi-step reasoning, where intermediate claims form implicit directed acyclic graphs whose node correctness is structurally conditioned on their ancestors. This makes factuality uncertainty structural, rather than a trivial accumulation of node-wise errors, and necessitates inference-time uncertainty quantification over the reasoning structure. While conformal prediction (CP) offers flexible user-specified factuality control, existing work remains post-hoc and cannot intervene during generation. To fill the gap between CP's flexibility and its post-hoc limitation, we propose an \emph{Inference-Time Conformal Reasoning (ITCR)} framework that integrates CP directly into reasoning graph generation. ITCR learns a structure-level factuality uncertainty function that aggregates claim-level factuality signals over reasoning graphs without complex modeling assumptions. We then design the non-conformity score based on graph-level factuality uncertainty and calibrate the conformal threshold to decide when to stop generation. We theoretically show such generation is nested, yielding valid coverage guarantees for factuality control. Experiments over multiple datasets and coverage objectives demonstrate empirically valid coverage. In downstream reasoning tasks, inference-time calibrated graphs yield more accurate generation than post-hoc pruned graphs.

We present a multilingual fact-checking system deployed at Factiverse, designed for high-throughput and low-latency operation across diverse languages. The system follows a modular pipeline with three stages: claim detection, evidence retrieval and re-ranking, and veracity prediction. We fine-tune XLM-RoBERTa-Large for claim detection, mmBERT-base for three-label stance classification (Supports/Refutes/Mixed), and a SetFit-based multilingual re-ranker for claim--evidence matching. We compare these components against strong LLM baselines, including GPT-5.2, Claude Opus~4.6, and Qwen3-8b. Experiments on production data spanning 114 languages for claim detection and 28 languages for veracity prediction show that task-specific fine-tuning provides strong and stable multilingual performance, while the fine-tuned retrieval model remains competitive with modern proprietary embeddings. Same-hardware latency measurements further show large efficiency gains for encoder-based components, supporting their use in production deployments with tight cost and privacy constraints. Overall, compact fine-tuned, self-hosted models remain a practical and effective foundation for multilingual fact-checking at scale. Code and data used for this study are available at https://github.com/factiverse/factcheck-editor.