Fact-Checking

Multi-step agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines have demonstrated significant capability for complex reasoning tasks, yet remain vulnerable to a class of failure that existing hallucination detection mechanisms systematically miss: cascading hallucination, where errors introduced at early pipeline stages propagate and amplify across successive reasoning steps, producing confident but factually incorrect final outputs. To address this vulnerability, we formalize cascading hallucination as a distinct failure mode in agentic RAG systems, present a four-type taxonomy of cascade patterns, and introduce CHARM (Cascading Hallucination Aware Resolution and Mitigation), an architectural framework for detecting and interrupting error propagation in multi-step reasoning pipelines. CHARM comprises four components - stage-level fact verification, cross-stage consistency tracking, confidence propagation monitoring, and cascade resolution triggering - that operate alongside standard agentic RAG pipelines without requiring architectural replacement. We evaluate CHARM on HotpotQA, MuSiQue, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and a custom adversarial dataset across LangChain agentic pipeline configurations, achieving an 89.4% cascade detection rate with a 5.3% false positive rate and 215 ms +/- 18 ms average latency overhead per stage, achieving an error propagation reduction of 82.1%, compared to 18.5% for output-level detectors. Component ablations confirm that each detection module contributes meaningfully to overall cascade coverage. CHARM integrates with human-in-the-loop oversight frameworks to provide a complete reliability and governance stack for production agentic AI deployment.

Community-based fact-checking that relies on cross-consensus is expanding rapidly on social media platforms. However, the delay and low-ratio of cross-consensus community fact-checks rated by human contributors remains a significant challenge. To address this, we first created ComRate, a large-scale dataset comprising 2.5 million community notes and over 209 million ratings sourced from $\mathbb{X}$. We then propose MultiCom, a persona-guided multi-agent rating framework for community note evaluation. MultiCom simulates diverse rater population by clustering contributors in a matrix-factorized rater space and prompting persona agents to generate structured assessments based on the official community notes rating schema. These agents output structured and explainable judgments, such as confidence, agreement signals and reasons. An out-of-fold calibrated aggregation algorithm combines features such as raw votes and diagnostic reason signals for reliable prediction. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that MultiCom outperforms alternative methods, achieving an average accuracy of 84.7% (balanced accuracy 68.3%, macro-F1 60.1%) on the evaluation set.

The main goal of active finetuning is to improve a pretrained model's performance on a specific task or domain by finetuning it with carefully selected informative or challenging data. Previous research has predominantly focused on the active aspect (i.e., data selection) while uniformly employing full finetuning for model adaptation, which inevitably distorts pretrained features due to distribution shift. This issue becomes particularly pronounced when the model size is large relative to the finetuning data quantity, leading to heightened overfitting risks. To address this critical gap, we formally outline the FiAF task that emphasizes systematic exploration of finetuning methodologies in active learning. We propose FACT, a three-phase hierarchical finetuning framework featuring both efficiency and simplicity, specifically designed for active finetuning scenarios. Our comprehensive experiments span: (1) Three major dataset categories encompassing classic (CIFAR10, CIFAR100, ImageNet-1k), imbalanced (CIFAR10-LT, CIFAR100-LT), and fine-grained (StanfordCars, FGVCAircraft) image classification datasets, each evaluated under 3-5 distinct sampling ratios; (2) Diverse pretrained architectures including Convolutional Neural Network (ConvNeXt), Vision Transformer (ViT), and Vision LSTM (ViL) networks; (3) A systematic investigation of frozen feature augmentation (FroFA) strategies. (4) A comprehensive and rigorous analysis of efficiency and generalizability. The results demonstrate significant improvements with strong generalization and robustness. Notably, under low sampling ratios, our framework achieves remarkable performance gains of over 20% on the ViT model for CIFAR10, CIFAR100, and ImageNet-1k benchmarks. This systematic approach establishes new state-of-the-art performance while maintaining parameter efficiency, proving particularly effective when labeled data is scarce.

In RAG-based fact-checking, LLMs are increasingly used as verifiers to check given claims against retrieved evidence. Their parametric knowledge can induce pre-evidence tendencies that may conflict with the retrieved context, yet existing evaluation frameworks do not characterize such prior-context discrepancy or measure how verifiers arbitrate between parametric and contextual signals. We introduce \textsc{PAVE} (\emph{Prior-Aware Verifier Evaluation}), a diagnostic testbed that stratifies an LLM verifier into four epistemic states based on the correctness and confidence of its pre-evidence prior and evaluates its arbitration behavior on this new benchmark, i.e., whether it persists in correct prior under misleading evidence, and whether it corrects wrong prior when accurate evidence is provided. Experiments across seven LLMs reveal unreliable and highly model-dependent prior-context arbitration, highlighting the importance of verifier selection for real-world RAG-based fact-checking applications. Based on these findings, we propose a lightweight JSD-based test-time arbitration method that improves factual reliability without modifying the underlying model, achieving competitive performance across diverse LLM families.

We study fact-level repair for multimodal generation, where a fluent output may contain specific facts that are not supported by the input. Existing inference-time repair methods often generate feedback by jointly conditioning on the input and the current output. This design has two limitations: hallucinated claims in the output can bias the model's interpretation of the input, and free-form feedback cannot be ranked or scheduled at the fact level. We present TIGER, an inference-time framework that redesigns feedback for localized repair. TIGER independently extracts an observation graph from the input and a claim graph from the current output, then assigns each claim a graph-conditioned risk score based on support and conflict. The model repairs selected high-risk claims while keeping the backbone frozen. We provide a convergence analysis showing that the expected total risk decreases geometrically to an explicit asymptotic bound under mild assumptions. Experiments across four cross-modal paths, including image-to-text, image+text-to-text, audio-to-text, and video-to-text, show that TIGER reduces unsupported content while preserving task quality. The gains hold across multiple backbones, and a CrisisFACTS case study suggests that the same repair mechanism can improve grounding in multi-source settings.

Grounded claim factuality checking is important for large language model (LLM) applications such as retrieval-augmented generation, as it helps users assess the correctness of generated outputs. Existing metrics using entailment classifiers require dataset-specific threshold tuning, while LLM-based approaches often use direct prompting, which underutilises the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We address this by formulating grounded claim factuality checking as a true/false reading comprehension task and prompting LLMs with explicit test-taking strategies for efficient reasoning. Our method reduces token usage by over 80% compared to unguided open-ended reasoning, and achieves competitive performance to more expensive alternatives across two factuality benchmarks, setting a new state of the art on one. To further reduce inference cost, we train small language models (SLMs) to replace LLMs in the checking pipeline. Using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and a self-revision mechanism, the SLMs learn to improve their factuality judgements. Experimental results show that the resulting SLMs perform on par with strong baselines, combining low inference costs with generating supporting rationales to support interpretability. Code and datasets will be released upon acceptance.

Improving the quality of model-generated summaries, especially factuality, the accuracy of a summary with respect to its source content, remains a challenge. While reranking could select the optimal output from multiple generated candidates, it is limited to only using the source as guidance, resulting in unreliable summaries. To address this limitation, we propose ConSUM that reranks candidate summaries by considering two factors: consistency to the source document and consensus among the other candidates. Consensus is established using Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding over the set of generated summaries, while ensuring consistency by employing factuality-aware metrics that compare the summary against the source. Rigorous testing demonstrates that our system is competitive with existing methods, with human evaluations further confirming that its generated summaries are preferred over those from other systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/naist-nlp/ConSUM .

Conversational artificial intelligence (AI) provides an efficient and convenient gateway to information access. However, it can cause overreliance when users blindly trust AI and accept its answers without fact-checking. Information search increasingly follows a hybrid interaction paradigm that combines conversational AI with web search, making fact-checking easier. In this paper, we examine whether this interaction paradigm is effective in curbing reliance. We further investigate the underlying factors (e.g., digital literacy and conversation warmth) that drive users to verify AI answers. We conduct a mixed-subjects question-answering experiment where participants interact with either a warm or a neutral chatbot. Our findings reveal that reliance persists despite users having access to both conversational and web search. The decision to verify is driven primarily by existing user perceptions (e.g., prior trust in chatbots) rather than answer properties, with some users fact-checking regardless of the context and others trusting chatbots by default. Warm conversational style has an indirect yet critical influence on reliance by increasing agreement with the chatbot when it is incorrect. Consulting additional AI sources predicts higher accuracy, while traditional web search does not. Our study extends overreliance research by: (a) demonstrating its persistence despite access to fact-checking, (b) identifying verification behavior as user-dependent, and (c) revealing conversational warmth's indirect effect on overreliance with implications for designing trustworthy conversational search systems.

While Knowledge Editing (KE) enables efficient updates, its dominant Static Fact Overwriting paradigm treats LLMs as discrete databases, forcibly injecting isolated facts. Fracturing pre-trained logical topologies, this triggers Epistemic Dissonance -- a pathology where un-evolved legacy priors force the model to explicitly negate the injected update. Idealized interventions reveal that this is an inherent structural flaw rather than mere algorithmic noise, with a zero-distortion proxy yielding a catastrophic 95.6% self-refutation rate. Given the causally driven nature of real-world knowledge, grounding updates in explicit causal narratives effectively collapses this conflict rate to just 6.6%, underscoring the imperative for a paradigm shift toward Causal Editing. To internalize this evolution, we propose CODE (Causal On-policy Distillation for Editing). By coupling causal bootstrapping with asymmetric on-policy distillation, CODE engraves causal transition logic directly into parametric memory. Experiments on LLaMA-3.1 and Qwen-2.5 show CODE drastically suppresses self-refutation to 1.8% while securing robust multi-hop accuracy (up to 83.5%), seamlessly transforming discrete fact injection into coherent knowledge evolution. Code is available at https://github.com/CrashBugger/CODE.

Language models are becoming the default interface to factual knowledge, yet they often verify outputs more reliably than they generate them. This generation-verification gap (GV-gap) underlies many recent advances in self-improvement and reasoning, but its dynamics on factual knowledge specifically remain poorly understood. We focus on the training mechanisms underlying factual GV-gaps, distinguishing them from their computational and aesthetic counterparts. We trace generation and verification capabilities through three training phases (acquisition, continual learning, and updating) across four open-source model families at two scales each. Three findings recur across models: (i) verification is consistently learned before generation; (ii) verification is more robust to continual learning than generation; and (iii) factual updates can leave models in a "multi-verse" state, simultaneously verifying both old and new answers as correct. Natural experiments on frontier models reproduce these dynamics at scale and reveal residual verification biases on well-covered facts.

Reinforcement learning with evaluation metrics as rewards is widely used to enhance specific capabilities of language models. However, for tasks such as factually consistent summarisation, existing metrics remain underdeveloped, limiting their effectiveness as signals for shaping model behaviour.While individual factuality metrics are unreliable, their combination can more effectively capture diverse factual errors. We leverage this insight to introduce an automated training pipeline that improves factual consistency in summaries by aggregating scores from different weak metrics. Our approach avoids the need for complex reward shaping by mapping scores to preferences and filtering out cases with high disagreement between metrics. For each source document, we generate lexically similar summary pairs by varying decoding strategies, enabling the model to learn from factual differences caused by subtle lexical differences. This approach constructs a high-quality preference dataset using only source documents.Experiments demonstrate consistent factuality gains across models, ranging from early encoder-decoder architectures to modern large language models, with smaller models reaching comparable factuality to larger ones.

Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction. However, existing systems often rely on search snippets, sentence-level evidence, or locally segmented passages, which can miss decisive context and produce fragmented evidence. To overcome these limitations, we propose SEEK, a Semantic Evidence Extraction with an adaptive chunKing framework that constructs coherent evidence chunks from full fact-checking articles by identifying semantic topic transitions and preserving local verification context. The constructed chunks are encoded using a multilingual encoder and then multilingual LLMs are finetuned using LoRA adapter for veracity prediction. Experiments on X-FACT and RU22Fact show that SEEK improves macro-f1 by up to 10% over semantic chunking, 19% over sentence chunking, and 20% over search-snippet baselines. Evidence completeness and significance analyses further show that SEEK preserves richer verification context and enables more reliable multilingual fact-checking.

In the field of multimodal fact checking, the accuracy of retrieving evidence from different modalities has a significant impact on the downstream claim verification process. Existing general multimodal retrieval methods are often constructed based on semantics, resulting in the retrieved evidence being similar but not relevant to the claim. This paper proposes a \textbf{D}ynamic \textbf{A}daptive \textbf{C}ontrastive \textbf{L}earning method for evidence \textbf{R}etrieval called DACLR to address these issues. DACLR first uses a Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) to uniformly convert multimodal evidence and claims into text modalities, and extracts the features of these information at event level. Then, it conducts evidence retrieval through a two-stage retrieval method of recall-rerank. DACLR enhances the model's event perception ability of the retrieval stage by optimizing the contrastive loss and mining hard negative samples. Specifically, DACLR designs three loss functions at two levels (semantic and event) based on the InfoNCE loss.Corresponding to these, three sets of hard negative sample candidates are set up. The model dynamically adjusts the ratio based on the accuracy supervision signal of intra-batch samples, allowing the model to learn the correlation between claims and positive samples at the event level without forgetting the semantic retrieval ability. Extensive comparison and ablation experiments demonstrates the effectiveness of DACLR and its internal optimization methods. Further research also prove the advantages of DACLR in the field of multimodal evidence retrieval.

Existing text-to-image (T2I) evaluation metrics mainly assess whether generated images align with information explicitly stated in the prompt, but often fail to capture factual requirements that are implicit, externally grounded, or identity-defining. As a result, they are not well suited for evaluating factual correctness in prompts involving scientific knowledge, historical facts, products, or culture-specific concepts. We propose FActually Grounded Evaluation and Refinement (FAGER), an agentic framework that evaluates whether generated images correctly reflect visually verifiable facts grounded in or implied by the prompt, while also providing actionable feedback for improvement. FAGER first constructs a structured factual rubric by combining LLM-based fact proposal with reference-guided visual fact extraction and verification, then converts the rubric into question-answer pairs for VLM-based evaluation. To validate FAGER as a factuality metric, we introduce a Factual A/B test, which measures whether a metric prefers factual reference images over corresponding generated images. Across five datasets spanning science, history, products, culture, and knowledge-intensive concepts, FAGER consistently outperforms prior metrics on this test. We further show that FAGER can be used to refine T2I outputs in a fully training-free manner, yielding substantial factuality gains across datasets.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) embedded in agentic frameworks have transformed information retrieval from static, long context question answering into open-ended exploration. Yet real world use requires models to discover and synthesize "long-tail" facts from dispersed sources, a capability that remains under-evaluated. We introduce PolitNuggets, a multilingual benchmark for agentic information synthesis via constructing political biographies for 400 global elites, covering over 10000 political facts. We standardize evaluation with an optimized multi agent system and propose FactNet, an evidence conditional protocol that scores discovery, fine-grained accuracy, and efficiency. Across models and settings, we find that current systems often struggle with fine-grained details, and vary substantially in efficiency. Finally, using benchmark diagnostics, we relate agent performance to underlying model capabilities, highlighting the importance of short-context extraction, multilingual robustness, and reliable tool use.

With the vast amount of content uploaded every hour, along with the AI generated content that can include hallucinations, Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) has become increasingly vital, as it is infeasible for human fact-checkers to manually verify the sheer volume of information generated online. Professional fact-checkers have identified several gaps in existing AFC systems, noting a misalignment between how these systems operate and how fact-checking is performed in practice. In this paper, we introduce CAAFC (Chronological Actionable Automated Fact-Checker), a frame-work designed to bridge these gaps. It surpasses SOTA AFC and hallucination detection systems across multiple benchmark datasets. CAAFC operates on claims, conversations, and dialogues, enabling it not only to detect factual errors and hallucinations, but also to correct them by providing actionable justifications supported by primary information sources. Furthermore, CAAFC can update evidence and knowledge bases by incorporating recent and contextual information when necessary, thereby enhancing the reliability of fact verification.

Multimodal misinformation increasingly leverages visual persuasion, where repurposed or manipulated images strengthen misleading text. We introduce \textbf{RW-Post}, a post-aligned \textbf{text--image benchmark} for real-world multimodal fact-checking with \emph{auditable} annotations: each instance links the original social-media post with reasoning traces and explicitly linked evidence items derived from human fact-check articles via an LLM-assisted extraction-and-auditing pipeline. RW-Post supports controlled evaluation across closed-book, evidence-bounded, and open-web regimes, enabling systematic diagnosis of visual grounding and evidence utilization. We provide \textbf{AgentFact} as a reference verification baseline and benchmark strong open-source LVLMs under unified protocols. Experiments show substantial headroom: current models struggle with faithful evidence grounding, while evidence-bounded evaluation improves both accuracy and faithfulness. Code and dataset will be released at https://github.com/xudanni0927/AgentFact.

The ability to derive precise spatial and physical insights is a cornerstone of vision-language models (VLMs), yet their poor performances in related spatial intelligence tasks such as physical reasoning remain a fundamental barrier. The community critically lacks a scientific analysis revealing whether VLMs faithfully reach answers or plausibly make guesses. This work aims to provide a fundamental understanding of how VLMs perceive the physical world, and utilize physical laws, while assessing the reliability of model confidence. We propose NICE and FACT, a dual-diagnostic paradigm that explicitly decomposes quantitative reasoning for kinematic physics: FACT diagnoses visual fidelity, physical law comprehension, and temporal grounding. NICE studies our novel neighborhood-informed calibration method and novel metrics to evaluate and calibrate confidence reliability. Evaluated across 6 latest state-of-the-art VLMs, we uncover that models fail to identify visual preconditions or utilize necessary physical laws to reach answers. This work highlights and establishes a standardized diagnostic paradigm to guide the development of faithful, physically-grounded VLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) power deep research agents that synthesize information from hundreds of web sources into cited reports, yet these citations cannot be reliably verified. Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking bias, or employ retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that does not validate source accessibility, relevance, or factual consistency. We introduce the first source attribution evaluation framework that uses a reproducible AST parser to extract and evaluate inline citations from LLM-generated Markdown reports at scale. Unlike methods that verify claims in isolation, our framework closes the loop by retrieving the actual cited content, enabling human or model evaluators to judge each citation against its source. Citations are evaluated along three dimensions. (1) Link Works verifies URL accessibility, (2) Relevant Content measures topical alignment, and (3) Fact Check validates factual accuracy against source content. We benchmark 14 closed-source and open-source LLMs across three evaluation dimensions using rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge evaluators calibrated through human review. Our results reveal that even the strongest frontier models maintain link validity above 94% and relevance above 80%, yet achieve only 39-77% factual accuracy, while fewer than half of open-source models successfully generate cited reports in a one-shot setting. Ablation studies on research depth show that Fact Check accuracy drops by approximately 42% on average across two frontier models as tool calls scale from 2 to 150, demonstrating that more retrieval does not produce more accurate citations. These findings reveal a critical disconnect between surface-level citation quality and factual reliability, and our framework provides the evaluation infrastructure to assess the disconnect.

Fact-checking articles encode rich supporting evidence and reasoning, yet this evidence remains largely inaccessible to automated verification systems due to unstructured presentation. We introduce PrimeFacts, a methodology and resource for extracting fine-grained evidence from full fact-checking articles. We compile 13,106 PolitiFact articles with claims, verdicts, and all referenced sources, and we identify 49,718 in-article hyperlinks as natural anchors to pinpoint key evidence. Our framework leverages large language models (LLMs) to rewrite these anchor sentences into stand-alone, context-independent premises and investigates the extraction of additional implicit evidence. In evaluations on cross-article evidence retrieval and claim verification, the extracted premises substantially improve performance. Decontextualized evidence yields higher retrievability, achieving up to a 30 percent relative gain in Mean Reciprocal Rank over verbatim sentences, and using the evidence for verdict prediction raises Macro-F1 by 10-20 points over the baseline. These gains are consistent across different verdict granularities (2-class vs. 5-class) and model architectures. A qualitative analysis indicates that the decontextualized premises remain faithful to the original sources. Our work highlights the promise of reusing fact-checkers' evidence for automation and provides a large-scale resource of structured evidence from real-world fact-checks.

Large Language Models exhibit strong reasoning and semantic understanding capabilities but often hallucinate in domains that require expert knowledge, among which fabrications, the generation of factually incorrect yet fluent statements, pose the greatest risk in medical contexts. Existing medical hallucination datasets inadequately capture fabrication phenomena due to limited fabrication coverage, stylistic disparities between human and LLM-authored texts, and distributional drift during hallucinated sample synthesis. To address this, we propose a data-centric pipeline to generate realistic and word-level fabrications that preserve syntactic and stylistic fidelity while introducing subtle factual deviations, resulting in MedFabric. Building upon this dataset, we introduce ETHER, a modular word-level fabrication detector integrating Text2Table Decomposition, Word Masking and Filling and Hybrid Sentence Pair Evaluation to enhance factual alignment. Empirical results demonstrate that MedFabric outperforms state-of-the-art detectors by over 15% on word-level fabrication benchmarks while maintaining consistent performance across structural similarities, offering a comprehensive framework for reliable and domain-specific factuality detection.

Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.

Large Reasoning Models achieve strong performance on complex tasks but remain prone to hallucinations, particularly in long-form generation where errors compound across reasoning steps. Existing approaches to improving factuality, including abstention and factuality-driven optimization, follow a \emph{coupled exploration-commitment} paradigm, in which intermediate reasoning is unconditionally propagated to the final output, limiting fine-grained control over information selection and integration. In this paper, we propose an \textbf{Exploration-Commitment Decoupling} paradigm that disentangles knowledge exploration from final commitment, enabling models to explore with awareness while answering cautiously. We instantiate the paradigm with \textbf{Calibration-Aware Generation (CAG)}, a framework that equips models with end-to-end, calibration-aware generation capabilities, by augmenting intermediate reasoning with calibrated reliability estimates and prioritizing reliable content in final outputs. Across five long-form factuality benchmarks and multiple model families, CAG improves factuality by up to 13%, while reducing decoding time by up to 37%. Overall, our work highlights decoupling as a principled approach for more reliable long-form generation, offering directions for trustworthy and self-aware generative systems.

Despite significant strides in factual reliability, errors -- often termed hallucinations -- remain a major concern for generative AI, especially as LLMs are increasingly expected to be helpful in more complex or nuanced setups. Yet even in the simplest setting -- factoid question-answering with clear ground truth-frontier models without external tools continue to hallucinate. We argue that most factuality gains in this domain have come from expanding the model's knowledge boundary (encoding more facts) rather than improving awareness of that boundary (distinguishing known from unknown). We conjecture that the latter is inherently difficult: models may lack the discriminative power to perfectly separate truths from errors, creating an unavoidable tradeoff between eliminating hallucinations and preserving utility. This tradeoff dissolves under a different framing. If we understand hallucinations as confident errors -- incorrect information delivered without appropriate qualification -- a third path emerges beyond the answer-or-abstain dichotomy: expressing uncertainty. We propose faithful uncertainty: aligning linguistic uncertainty with intrinsic uncertainty. This is one facet of metacognition -- the ability to be aware of one's own uncertainty and to act on it. For direct interaction, acting on uncertainty means communicating it honestly; for agentic systems, it becomes the control layer governing when to search and what to trust. Metacognition is thus essential for LLMs to be both trustworthy and capable; we conclude by highlighting open problems for progress towards this objective.

News outlets shape public opinion at a scale that makes automated detection of political bias and factuality essential. However, the field still lacks unified resources, comprehensive evaluations across diverse approaches, and systematic analyses of the representations and fusion strategies that matter most, especially under label sparsity and dataset diversity. In addition, there is little empirical work reporting broad, observation-driven findings about what consistently works, what fails, and why. We address these gaps through four main contributions. First, we introduce MBFC-2025, a large-scale label set covering approximately 2,600 outlets from Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC). Second, we construct multiview representations for ACL-2020 (Panayotov et al., 2022), which includes around 900 outlets, as well as for MBFC-2025. These representations span Alexa graphs, hyperlink graphs, LLM-derived graphs, articles, and Wikipedia descriptions. Third, we provide a systematic evaluation and analysis of embedding views and fusion strategies, including a reinforcement learning-based fusion variant. Fourth, we conduct extensive experiments that achieve state-of-the-art results on ACL-2020 and establish strong benchmarks on MBFC-2025.

Democratic discourse analysis systems increasingly rely on multi-agent LLM pipelines in which distinct evaluator models are assigned adversarial roles to generate structured, multi-perspective assessments of political statements. A core assumption is that models will reliably maintain their assigned roles. This paper provides the first systematic empirical test of that assumption using the TRUST pipeline. We develop an epistemic stance classifier that identifies advocate roles from reasoning text without relying on surface vocabulary, and measure role fidelity across 60 political statements (30 English, 30 German) using four metrics: Role Drift Index (RDI), Expected Drift Distance (EDD), Directional Drift Index (DDI), and Entropy-based Role Stability (ERS). We identify two failure modes - the Epistemic Floor Effect (fact-check results create an absolute lower bound below which the legitimizing role cannot be maintained) and Role-Prior Conflict (training-time knowledge overrides role instructions for factually unambiguous statements) - as manifestations of a single mechanism: Epistemic Role Override (ERO). Model choice significantly affects role fidelity: Mistral Large outperforms Claude Sonnet by 28pp (67% vs. 39%) and exhibits a qualitatively different failure mode - role abandonment without polarity reversal - compared to Claude's active switch to the opposing stance. Role fidelity is language-robust. Fact-check provider choice is not universally neutral: Perplexity significantly reduces Claude's role fidelity on German statements (Delta = -15pp, p = 0.007) while leaving Mistral unaffected. These findings have direct implications for multi-agent LLM validation: a system validated without role fidelity measurement may systematically misrepresent the epistemic diversity it was designed to provide.

We introduce DualFact, a dual-layer, multimodal factuality evaluation framework for procedural video captioning. DualFact separates factual correctness into conceptual facts, capturing abstract semantic roles (e.g., Action, Ingredient, Tool, Location), and contextual facts, capturing their grounded predicate-argument realizations in video. To support complete and role-consistent evaluation, DualFact incorporates implicit argument augmentation (VIA) and contrastive fact sets. We instantiate DualFact in two modes: DualFact-T, which verifies facts against textual evidence, and DualFact-V, which verifies facts against video-grounded visual evidence. Experiments on YouCook3-Fact and CraftBench-Fact show that state-of-the-art multimodal language models produce fluent but often factually incomplete captions, with systematic omissions and role-level inconsistencies. DualFact correlates more strongly with human factuality judgments than standard metrics, particularly for contextual facts, and reveals that caption-only evaluation overestimates hallucinations compared to video-grounded verification. Overall, DualFact offers an interpretable and human-aligned evaluation protocol that highlights persistent challenges in multimodal factual grounding, extending beyond surface-level fluency.

Large language models are widely adopted as automated evaluation judges, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt rephrasings remains largely unexamined. We conduct a systematic empirical study of prompt-induced decision instability across multiple evaluation tasks and judge architectures. To facilitate this analysis, we release JudgeSense, a benchmark comprising hand-validated prompt-paraphrase pairs spanning factuality, coherence, relevance, and preference, drawn from established NLP benchmarks and accompanied by comprehensive decision logs. The benchmark enables the measurement of judge stability across equivalent prompts, allowing researchers to assess whether stability correlates with model scale or instruction-tuning, and to identify which tasks are most sensitive to prompt wording. Our evaluation reveals that coherence remains the primary task for distinguishing judge behavior, while factuality judgments demonstrate high stability under standard conditions. Pairwise evaluation tasks consistently exhibit position bias. Crucially, we find that model scale is not a reliable proxy for consistency; notably, as an interesting result in our analysis, the largest and newest models are not the most consistent.

We consider the following fundamental problem: given a database D, Boolean conjunctive query (CQ) q, and fact f in D, decide whether f is relevant to q wrt. D, i.e., does f belong to a minimal subset S of D such that S |= q. Despite being of central importance to query answer explanation, the combined complexity of deciding query relevance has not been studied in detail, leaving open what makes this problem hard, and which restrictions can yield lower complexity. Relevance has already been shown to be harder than query evaluation: namely, $Σ^p_2$-complete for CQs, even over a binary signature. We further observe that NP-hardness applies already to (acyclic) chain CQs. Our work identifies self-joins (multiple atoms with the same relation) as the culprit. Indeed, we prove that if we forbid or bound the occurrence of self-joins, then relevance has the same complexity as query evaluation, namely, NP (without structural restrictions) and LogCFL (for bounded hypertreewidth classes). In the ontology setting, we establish an analogous result for ontology-mediated queries consisting of a CQ and DL-Lite_R ontology, namely that relevance is no harder than query answering provided that we bound the interaction width (which generalizes both self-join width and a recently introduced 'interaction-free' condition). Our results thus pinpoint what makes relevance harder than query evaluation and identify natural classes of queries which admit efficient relevance computation.

Online misinformation is one of the most challenging issues lately, yielding severe consequences, including political polarization, attacks on democracy, and public health risks. Misinformation manifests in any platform with a large user base, including online social networks and messaging apps. It permeates all media and content forms, including images, text, audio, and video. Distinctly, video-based misinformation represents a multifaceted challenge for fact-checkers, given the ease with which individuals can record and upload videos on various video-sharing platforms. Previous research efforts investigated detecting video-based misinformation, focusing on whether a video shares misinformation or not on a video level. While this approach is useful, it only provides a limited and non-easily interpretable view of the problem given that it does not provide an additional context of when misinformation occurs within videos and what content (i.e., claims) are responsible for the video's misinformation nature. In this work, we attempt to bridge this research gap by creating two novel datasets that allow us to explore misinformation detection on videos via audio transcripts, focusing on identifying the span of videos that are responsible for the video's misinformation claim (misinformation span detection). We present two new datasets for this task. We transcribe each video's audio to text, identifying the video segment in which the misinformation claims appears, resulting in two datasets of more than 500 videos with over 2,400 segments containing annotated fact-checked claims. Then, we employ classifiers built with state-of-the-art language models, and our results show that we can identify in which part of a video there is misinformation with an F1 score of 0.68. We make publicly available our annotated datasets. We also release all transcripts, audio and videos.

Half-truths, claims that are factually correct yet misleading due to omitted context, remain a blind spot for fact verification systems focused on explicit falsehoods. Addressing such omission-based manipulation requires reasoning not only about what is said, but also about what is left unsaid. We propose RADAR, a role-anchored multi-agent debate framework for omission-aware fact verification under realistic, noisy retrieval. RADAR assigns complementary roles to a Politician and a Scientist, who reason adversarially over shared retrieved evidence, moderated by a neutral Judge. A dual-threshold early termination controller adaptively decides when sufficient reasoning has been reached to issue a verdict. Experiments show that RADAR consistently outperforms strong single- and multi-agent baselines across datasets and backbones, improving omission detection accuracy while reducing reasoning cost. These results demonstrate that role-anchored, retrieval-grounded debate with adaptive control is an effective and scalable framework for uncovering missing context in fact verification. The code is available at https://github.com/tangyixuan/RADAR.

Audio platforms have evolved beyond entertainment. They have become central to public discourse, from podcasts and radio to WhatsApp voice notes and live streams. With millions of shows and hundreds of millions of listeners, audio platforms are now a major channel for misinformation. Yet existing fact-checking pipelines are mostly designed for written claims, overlooking the unique properties of spoken media. We argue that audio misinformation is not merely textual content with transcripts: it is structurally different because it is both spoken - carrying persuasive force through prosody, pacing, and emotion - and conversational - unfolding across turns, speakers, and episodes. These dual properties introduce verification difficulties that traditional methods rarely face. This position paper synthesizes evidence across modalities and platforms, examines datasets and methods, and highlights why existing pipelines fail on audio. We argue that advancing fact-checking requires rethinking verification pipelines around the spoken and conversational realities of audio.

Hateful content online is often expressed using fact-like, not necessarily correct information, especially in coordinated online harassment campaigns and extremist propaganda. Failing to jointly address hate speech (HS) and misinformation can deepen prejudice, reinforce harmful stereotypes, and expose bystanders to psychological distress, while polluting public debate. Moreover, these messages require more effort from content moderators because they must assess both harmfulness and veracity, i.e., fact-check them. To address this challenge, we release WSF-ARG+, the first dataset which combines hate speech with check-worthiness information. We also introduce a novel LLM-in-the-loop framework to facilitate the annotation of check-worthy claims. We run our framework, testing it with 12 open-weight LLMs of different sizes and architectures. We validate it through extensive human evaluation, and show that our LLM-in-the-loop framework reduces human effort without compromising the annotation quality of the data. Finally, we show that HS messages with check-worthy claims show significantly higher harassment and hate, and that incorporating check-worthiness labels improves LLM-based HS detection up to 0.213 macro-F1 and to 0.154 macro-F1 on average for large models.

Enabling artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models, to update knowledge and flexibly apply it during reasoning remains a central challenge. Existing knowledge editing approaches emphasize atomic facts, improving factual recall but often failing to integrate updated information into a coherent framework usable across contexts. In this work, we argue that knowledge update is fundamentally a reasoning problem rather than a memorization problem. Consequently, a model should be trained in situations where the new information is instrumental to solving a task, combined with pre-existing knowledge, and exercised through multi-step reasoning. Based on this insight, we propose a training strategy based on three principles. First, new knowledge is introduced as a coherent background story that contextualizes novel facts and explains their relation to existing knowledge. Second, models are trained using self-generated multi-hop questions that require multi-step reasoning involving the new information. Third, training is done using knowledge distillation, forcing a student model to internalize the teacher's reasoning behavior without access to the novel information. Experiments show that models trained with this strategy effectively leverage newly acquired knowledge during reasoning and achieve remarkable performance on challenging questions that require combining multiple new facts.

Fact-checking systems must be scalable and epistemically trustworthy. We introduce Althea, a retrieval-augmented system for user-driven claim evaluation that matches standard pipelines on AVeriTeC while improving supported/refuted discrimination. A longitudinal survey experiment (N=961) treats a ten-day follow-up as a fading test: after modeling a verification procedure, we remove the system and ask whether users reproduce it unaided, testing metalearning rather than one-time accuracy. We compare two AI-assisted treatments, Exploratory (guided reasoning) and Summary (synthesized verdicts), against two baselines, unrelated news and Self-search. The treatments yield the strongest immediate accuracy and confidence gains but do not survive the fading test: on unseen claims they perform no better than news, while Self-search, with no procedure to fade, retains a large advantage. This reveals a factchecking-metalearning tradeoff: conditions that most improve immediate accuracy are least likely to produce metalearning, cautioning against treating AI-delivered verdicts as a source of durable literacy gains.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating fluent utterances but can lack reliable grounding in verified information. At the same time, knowledge-graph-based fact-checkers deliver precise and interpretable evidence, yet suffer from limited coverage or latency. By integrating LLMs with knowledge graphs and real-time search agents, we introduce a hybrid fact-checking approach that leverages the individual strengths of each component. Our system comprises three autonomous steps: 1) a Knowledge Graph (KG) Retrieval for rapid one-hop lookups in DBpedia, 2) an LM-based classification guided by a task-specific labeling prompt, producing outputs with internal rule-based logic, and 3) a Web Search Agent invoked only when KG coverage is insufficient. Our pipeline achieves an F1 score of 0.93 on the FEVER benchmark on the Supported/Refuted split without task-specific fine-tuning. To address Not enough information cases, we conduct a targeted reannotation study showing that our approach frequently uncovers valid evidence for claims originally labeled as Not Enough Information (NEI), as confirmed by both expert annotators and LLM reviewers. With this paper, we present a modular, opensource fact-checking pipeline with fallback strategies and generalization across datasets.

Human feedback is critical for aligning AI systems to human values. As AI capabilities improve and AI is used to tackle more challenging tasks, verifying quality and safety becomes increasingly challenging. This paper explores how we can leverage AI to improve the quality of human oversight. We focus on an important safety problem that is already challenging for humans: fact-verification of AI outputs. We find that combining AI ratings and human ratings based on AI rater confidence is better than relying on either alone. Giving humans an AI fact-verification assistant further improves their accuracy, but the type of assistance matters. Displaying AI explanation, confidence, and labels leads to over-reliance, but just showing search results and evidence fosters more appropriate trust. These results have implications for Amplified Oversight -- the challenge of combining humans and AI to supervise AI systems even as they surpass human expert performance.

Existing real-world datasets for multimodal fact-checking have multiple limitations: they contain few instances, cover only one or two languages, focus on a single task, or rely on external news article sets to source true claims. To address these shortcomings, we introduce M4FC, a new real-world dataset comprising 4,982 images paired with 6,980 claims. The images, verified by professional fact-checkers from 22 organizations, represent a diverse range of cultural and geographic contexts. Each claim is available in one or two out of ten languages. M4FC spans six multimodal fact-checking tasks: visual claim extraction, claimant intent prediction, fake image detection, image contextualization, location verification, and verdict prediction. We provide baseline results for all tasks and analyze how combining intermediate tasks affects verdict prediction performance. We make our dataset and code publicly available.

Equitable access to reliable health information is vital when integrating AI into healthcare. Yet, information quality varies across languages, raising concerns about the reliability and consistency of multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs). We systematically examine cross-lingual disparities in pre-training source and factuality alignment in LLM answers for multilingual healthcare Q&A across English, German, Turkish, Chinese (Mandarin), and Italian. We (i) constructed Multilingual Wiki Health Care (MultiWikiHealthCare), a multilingual dataset from Wikipedia; (ii) analyzed cross-lingual healthcare coverage; (iii) assessed LLM response alignment with these references; and (iv) conducted a case study on factual alignment through the use of contextual information and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Our findings reveal substantial cross-lingual disparities in both Wikipedia coverage and LLM factual alignment. Across LLMs, responses align more with English Wikipedia, even when the prompts are non-English. Providing contextual excerpts from non-English Wikipedia at inference time effectively shifts factual alignment toward culturally relevant knowledge. These results highlight practical pathways for building more equitable, multilingual AI systems for healthcare.

An Achilles heel of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their tendency to hallucinate non-factual statements. A response mixed of factual and non-factual statements poses a challenge for humans to verify and accurately base their decisions on. To combat this problem, we propose Highlighted Chain-of-Thought Prompting (HoT), a technique for prompting LLMs to generate responses with XML tags that ground facts to those provided in the question. That is, given an input question, LLMs would first re-format the question to add XML tags highlighting key facts, and then, generate a response with highlights over the facts referenced from the input. Compared to vanilla chain of thought prompting (CoT), HoT reduces the rate of hallucination and separately improves LLM accuracy consistently on over 22 tasks from arithmetic, reading comprehension, to logical reasoning. When asking humans to verify LLM responses, highlights help time-limited participants to more accurately and efficiently recognize when LLMs are correct. Yet, surprisingly, when LLMs are wrong, HoTs tend to fool users into believing that an answer is correct.

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) requires time-critical decision-making, where inaccurate interpretation of neuroimaging findings can lead to irreversible disability. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are central to detecting acute infarction, yet generating factually reliable radiology reports directly from 3D MRI remains challenging due to the difficulty of learning robust cross-modal alignments between volumetric images and clinical text. We propose paired image-domain retrieval and text-domain augmentation (PIRTA), a retrieval-augmented generation framework that improves report factuality by avoiding explicit image-text alignment. PIRTA retrieves clinically similar 3D DWI/ADC volumes using a pretrained 3D vision encoder and leverages their paired clinician-authored reports to ground large language model (LLM)-based report generation. Experiments on multi-institutional in-house data, a held-out external privacy-preserving cohort, and the public ISLES benchmark demonstrate that PIRTA achieves strong image-domain retrieval performance and consistently improves ischemic-territory accuracy, a clinically grounded surrogate for report factuality, compared to direct image-to-text baselines. These results indicate that retrieval-grounded generation provides a scalable and reliable paradigm for producing factually consistent radiology reports from complex 3D brain MRI. Source code is available at https://github.com/jhlee0619/PIRTA.

With the surge of online misinformation, Large Language Models (LLMs) and Reasoning Large Language Models (RLMs) serving as Automatic Fact-Checking (AFC) systems have emerged as a prominent paradigm for reliable, explainable verification. However, our empirical study reveals that this paradigm faces a critical risk asymmetry challenge when deployed in the real world under resource-constrained environments. While Hotspot Perception Ability (HPA), the capacity to dynamically allocate reasoning resources based on social impact, is essential to mitigate this risk, existing benchmarks lack the social metadata and evaluation framework to meet this urgent evaluation needs, thereby hindering the advancement of these AFC systems. To bridge this gap, we introduce TrendFact, the first benchmark capable of evaluating HPA and three fact-checking tasks. It consists of 7,643 curated samples sourced from trending platforms and professional datasets, with an evidence library containing 366,634 entries. To enable HPA assessment, we propose two novel metrics: the Explanation Consistency Score (ECS) to evaluate the reliability of verification reasoning, and the Hotspot Claim Perception Index (HCPI) to quantify the overall HPA of AFC systems. Extensive experiments demonstrate that existing AFC systems exhibit limited performance on TrendFact. Furthermore, our proposed FactISR framework effectively enhances HPA and computational efficiency for RLMs-served AFC systems.

The rapid spread of false and misleading information on online platforms poses a growing societal challenge, overwhelming the capacity of manual fact-checking and increasing the demand for scalable, reliable automation. Recent advances in generative large language models (LLMs) have broadened the scope of automated fact-checking beyond accuracy-driven prediction. LLMs are now integral components of fact-checking pipelines, supporting tasks such as generating new data, performing and assisting with fact verification, and shaping how fact-checking systems are evaluated. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the role of generative LLMs in automated fact-checking, based on a systematic review of 199 research papers. We introduce a unifying taxonomy that captures how generative LLMs are integrated into fact-checking workflows and analyze their use across core fact-checking tasks, dataset construction and augmentation strategies, task formulations, and evaluation practices. Additionally, we investigate the impact of generative LLMs in multilingual and low-resource settings in fact-checking, highlighting trends, limitations, and gaps in current research. By consolidating fragmented research efforts and identifying methodological patterns, limitations, and open challenges, this survey maps the current state of generative LLMs in automated fact-checking. It aims to support researchers in developing more reliable, interpretable, and inclusive fact-checking systems, while outlining promising directions for future research in this rapidly evolving field.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has raised important concerns about the factual reliability of their outputs, particularly in low-resource languages such as Urdu. Existing automated fact-checking systems are predominantly developed for English, leaving a significant gap for the more than 200 million Urdu speakers worldwide. In this work, we present UrduFactBench and UrduFactQA, two novel hand-annotated benchmarks designed to enable fact-checking and factual consistency evaluation in Urdu. While UrduFactBench focuses on claim verification, UrduFactQA targets the factuality of LLMs in question answering. These resources, the first of their kind for Urdu, were developed through a multi-stage annotation process involving native Urdu speakers. To complement these benchmarks, we introduce UrduFactCheck, a modular fact-checking framework that incorporates both monolingual and translation-based evidence retrieval strategies to mitigate the scarcity of high-quality Urdu evidence. Leveraging these resources, we conduct an extensive evaluation of twelve LLMs and demonstrate that translation-augmented pipelines consistently enhance performance compared to monolingual ones. Our findings reveal persistent challenges for open-source LLMs in Urdu and underscore the importance of developing targeted resources. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/UrduFactCheck.

We present $\textbf{Korean SimpleQA (KoSimpleQA)}$, a benchmark for evaluating factuality in large language models (LLMs) with a focus on Korean cultural knowledge. KoSimpleQA is designed to be challenging yet easy to grade, consisting of 938 short, fact-seeking questions with unambiguous answers. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation across a diverse set of open-source LLMs of varying sizes that support Korean, and find that even the strongest model generates correct answer only 31.6% of the time, underscoring the challenging nature of KoSimpleQA. Notably, performance rankings on KoSimpleQA differ substantially from those on the English SimpleQA, highlighting the unique value of our dataset. Furthermore, we observe that reasoning helps mitigate the cross-lingual knowledge gap in LLMs, which refers to disparities in their ability to manifest knowledge across languages. KoSimpleQA can be found at https://github.com/naver-ai/KoSimpleQA.