Factual Consistency Evaluation

Large language models (LLMs) trained predominantly on English data encode substantial world knowledge, yet often fail to express it reliably in other languages, a phenomenon known as cross-lingual factual inconsistency. To study and address this, we introduce PolyFact, a large-scale parallel multilingual factual QA dataset containing 100K Wikidata-grounded facts across 12 typologically diverse languages. Using PolyFact, we compare light continual pretraining (CPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) for improving cross-lingual factual recall in Qwen-2.5-7B and OLMo-2-1124-7B. We find that GRPO consistently outperforms SFT, improving both cross-lingual consistency and generalization to unseen languages, while CPT on parallel data yields limited additional gains. Mechanistic analyses further show that GRPO reorganizes multilingual routing by reducing language specialization in MLP layers and attention heads, thereby promoting more shared cross-lingual representations. We release our code, models, and dataset.

Radiology report evaluation must distinguish clinical compatibility from surface similarity, because negation, laterality, or normal-abnormal polarity can reverse a finding. We propose RadSEM (Radiology Sentence-Level Evaluation Metric), a constrained LLM-assisted metric for reference-based evaluation of radiology Findings. RadSEM rewrites reference and generated reports into ordered atomic finding sentences, each expressing one site-finding proposition. It then performs contradiction-constrained many-to-many matching: incompatible pairs such as "effusion" and "no effusion" receive no credit, while compatible granularity differences can receive partial credit. A deterministic stage weights pairs by part-whole and abnormal-detail relationships, counts unmatched findings, and produces an abnormal-focused weighted F1 score. Thus, the LLM supports structured rewriting and local alignment rather than acting as an opaque judge. We evaluate RadSEM with SSREE, a controlled monotonicity stress test built from 2,448 de-identified reports expanded into five graded corruption levels. RadSEM achieves Kendall tau_b of 0.957, all-pairs concordance of 97.8%, adjacent concordance of 95.0%, and strict five-level ordering for 81.9% of reports, outperforming radiology-specific and general text metrics while avoiding the failure in which polarity-inverted reports regain lexical overlap. On the same SSREE set, RadSEM outperforms the Ref-anchored RadSEM-Alt policy, improving adjacent concordance from 90.7% to 95.0% and strict ordering from 67.2% to 81.9%. On a 599-triplet synonym/antonym subset, RadSEM prefers synonyms in 597 cases (99.67%). These results suggest that explicit finding units, contradiction-aware matching, and abnormal-focused deterministic scoring make report scoring more interpretable and sensitive to clinically meaningful errors. Code is available at https://github.com/jdh-algo/RadSEM.

Cited RAG evaluation often treats visible sources as a grounding signal, but a real, topically relevant citation can still under-warrant the attached wording. We study this diagnostic failure as citation laundering: a related source is presented as warrant for an over-strong claim. We introduce FORCEBENCH, a contrastive stress test for evidence-force calibration. Each item holds a cited passage fixed and pairs an evidence-calibrated claim with a localized force-raised variant across five operational axes: relation, modality, scope, temporal validity, and numeric specificity. A calibrated evaluator should score the evidence-calibrated claim higher. Headline experiments use a fixed, locality-filtered 198-pair evaluation set. A citation-presence sanity check is uninformative by design; token and entity overlap still violate monotonicity on 32.8--36.4% of pairs. Across four reported model judges, standard generic support prompting is insufficient for this force-calibration stress test (aggregate MVR 47.2%), while explicit warrant-strength prompting lowers MVR to 24.5% but remains imperfect. We release the benchmark, prompts, outputs, and plug-in pipeline so citation evaluators can report monotonicity violation rate and force sensitivity alongside conventional support metrics.

Reliable evaluation is essential for understanding large language model (LLM) performance, yet today's go-to metrics, namely token-overlap scores (e.g., ROUGE) and embedding-based measures (e.g., BERTScore), often misjudge semantic similarity of documents. Our study shows that both token-overlap metrics and embedding-based metrics routinely assign nearly identical scores to texts that directly contradict each other, thereby potentially masking fundamental errors. We introduce MATCHA, an automatic metric that jointly rewards semantic agreement with a reference and penalizes contradictions. MATCHA employs a dual-view perspective that measures (i) proximity to the gold text and (ii) distance from an adversarially generated counterfactual contradiction. In eight public benchmarks, MATCHA outperforms popular metrics, compared with human annotations on question-answering, image caption generation, natural language inference, summarization, and semantic textual similarity tasks. On the TruthfulQA dataset (i.e., a dataset without a training set, where no embedding-based metrics could locally train on), this improvement in terms of matching texts with a reference reaches 18.38% over ROUGE-L and 20.82% over BERTScore. Both quantitative comparison and qualitative human assessments confirm the efficacy and validity of MATCHA and uncover fundamental weaknesses in pre-existing metrics. Compared with 23 embedding models, including top state-of-the-art ones, used as a metric similar to BERTScore, MATCHA remains the most accurate in distinguishing correct from incorrect statements solely based on a reference. Our code and metric are publicly available (https://github.com/Siran-Li/MATCHA).

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.

Data consistency between unstructured clinical notes and structured tables in Electronic Health Records (EHRs) is essential for patient safety and clinical decision-making. However, existing work on note-table consistency verification mainly relies on surface-level matching of numeric values or simple events. Such approaches fail to capture the reasoning underlying real-world EHR documentation, including clinical interpretation, event relations, and temporal changes. To address this gap, we introduce EHR-ReasonCon, a reasoning-intensive benchmark for note-table consistency verification. Built on MIMIC-III with expert-guided annotations, it comprises 8,048 entities derived from clinical notes and provides high-quality ground-truth labels. The annotation protocol is supported by specialized table-exploration tools to ensure systematic evidence retrieval and reliable consistency assessment. We also propose EHR-Inspector, an LLM-based framework that segments notes, extracts anchor entities and temporal references, and uses table-exploration tools to verify consistency against structured tables. Evaluated using expert-validated LLM-as-a-judge metrics under harsh and lenient criteria, EHR-Inspector achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple model backbones. Analyses further demonstrate the effectiveness of its components and highlight differences from human verification.

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.

Evaluating multi-turn dialogue systems remains challenging because response quality depends not only on the current prompt, but also on previously established entities, claims, and conversational commitments. Existing automatic evaluators, including LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and embedding-based metrics, largely rely on flat or turn-isolated representations, making them less effective at detecting long-range issues such as contradiction, topic drift, and entity inconsistency. To address this, we propose SKG-Eval, a quasi-deterministic and interpretable framework that models dialogue as an evolving Semantic Knowledge Graph (SKG) of entities, relations, and commitments across turns. The framework incrementally updates the graph through structured triple extraction and computes three complementary signals: (i) local relevance, measuring alignment with the current prompt and optional reference; (ii) historical consistency, evaluating how newly introduced information connects to prior conversational context using graph-based and embedding-driven signals; and (iii) logical coherence, assessed by a geometric contradiction engine that detects cross-turn conflicts without relying on NLI models or LLM judges. These signals are adaptively fused and aggregated into a length-invariant session score via recency-weighted trend analysis. Across multiple benchmarks, SKG-Eval achieves higher correlation with human judgments and substantially improves detection of long-range inconsistencies in extended conversations. In addition, the framework produces explicit contradiction certificates and deterministic scores for fixed inputs, enabling reproducible and auditable evaluation. Overall, our results suggest that structured externalized state tracking through semantic knowledge graphs provides a scalable alternative to implicit reasoning in LLM-based dialogue evaluators.

Incorporating specific knowledge into large language models via retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a widespread technique that fuels many of today's industry AI applications. A fundamental problem is to assess if the context retrieved by some similarity search provides indeed supporting facts, or instead misguides the generator with irrelevant information. It is critical to associate meaningful confidence measures about the factuality of the retrieval process with the generated answers. We present a new, two-staged approach to predict fact faithfulness of the output of retrieval-augmented generations. First, we employ conformal prediction to select only those retrieved chunks who have a high chance to come from the correct source. This approach in itself can improve answer quality by up to 6% in some of the studied datasets, however, the associated statistical guarantees do not hold generally, since the assumption of sample exchangeability depends on the retriever setup. We present diagnostic metrics to assess whether a setup is suitable. Second, we quantify confidence in the consistency of a generated final answer with a given retrieved context, using an attention-based factuality classifier. This approach can detect inconsistent answers with a chance of up to 77%. Our work helps to establish a novel type of certified RAG systems for a broad range of natural language industry applications.

Local factual edits in scientific manuscripts often create non-local revision obligations. If a dataset changes from 215 to 80 documents, claims such as 'medium-scale' or 'a few hundred items' may also become stale, even though they do not repeat the edited number. In an audit of recent arXiv cs.CL benchmark and dataset papers, we find fact-dependent qualitative claims in 37.2% of papers, suggesting that this dependency pattern is common in the target genre. We introduce EditPropBench, a benchmark for measuring whether LLM editors propagate factual edits through dependent manuscript claims. Each item contains an ML/NLP-style synthetic manuscript, a targeted edit, and a controlled fact graph with sentence-level labels for direct targets, required downstream updates, and unrelated text that should remain unchanged. We summarize cascade success with Edit-Ripple Adherence (ERA), the fraction of required downstream updates correctly revised, and validate the metric with adversarial probes and stress-test variants. On the hardest cases, where dependent claims use implicit or free-form wording rather than repeating the edited value, five LLM editing systems span ERA 0.148-0.705. Even the strongest misses roughly 30% of required cascade updates. This advantage persists in a mixed evaluation that includes easy cases solvable by deterministic substitution. EditPropBench shows that current LLM editors can repair many implicit consequences of factual edits, but reliable scientific revision still requires cascade-aware checking.

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.

Evaluating long document summaries remains the primary bottleneck in summarization research. Existing metrics correlate weakly with human judgments and produce aggregate scores without explaining deficiencies or guiding improvement, preventing effective refinement in applications requiring verifiable accuracy. We introduce LongSumEval, a unified framework bridging evaluation and generation through structured question-answering feedback. The framework operationalizes summary quality as answerability and factual alignment of question-answer pairs, generating interpretable scores and actionable feedback that identifies coverage gaps and factual inconsistencies. This resolves the misalignment where evaluation operates independently of generation objectives. Meta-evaluation of our QA-based evaluation module across seven benchmarks demonstrates substantially stronger agreement with human judgments compared to established metrics. Structured feedback enables significant quality improvements through self-refinement without retraining. By demonstrating that evaluation feedback can serve as executable instructions for generation, this work establishes a generalizable paradigm for aligning assessment with improvement, with direct implications for controllable text generation requiring verifiable accuracy and transparent quality control. All code and datasets will be released in GitHub for reproducibility.

The evaluation of generated reports remains a critical challenge in Computed Tomography (CT) report generation, due to the large volume of text, the diversity and complexity of findings, and the presence of fine-grained, disease-oriented attributes. Conventional evaluation metrics offer only coarse measures of lexical overlap or entity matching and fail to reflect the granular diagnostic accuracy required for clinical use. To address this gap, we propose CT-FineBench, a benchmark built from CT-RATE and Merlin to evaluate the fine-grained factual consistency of CT reports, constructed from CT-RATE and Merlin. Our benchmark is constructed through a meticulous, Question-Answering (QA) based process: first, we identify and structure key, finding-specific clinical attributes (like location, size, margin). Second, we systematically transform these attributes into a QA dataset, where questions probe for specific clinical details grounded in gold-standard reports. The evaluation protocol for CT-FineBench involves using this QA dataset to query a machine-generated report and scoring the correctness of the answers. This allows for a comprehensive, interpretable, and clinically-relevant assessment, moving beyond superficial lexical overlap to pinpoint specific clinical errors. Experiments show that CT-FineBench correlates better with expert clinical assessment and is substantially more sensitive to fine-grained factual errors than prior metrics.

Biomedical findings often seem to conflict across studies, but many of these differences are context-dependent rather than true contradictions. Variations in cohort, geography, assay protocol, disease subtype, and clinical setting can make both claims locally valid. Existing NLI and scientific claim-verification benchmarks reduce such cases to entailment, contradiction, or neutral, failing to capture the contextual structure behind divergence. To address this, we introduce BioDivergence, an evaluation framework with a six-class conflict taxonomy, a 13-axis divergence ontology, and four structured outputs per claim pair: conflict type, divergence axes, dominant confounder, and reconciliation explanation. We release BioDivergence-Silver-v1.0, an article-disjoint silver benchmark of 11,865 claim pairs across five biomedical domains, alongside a legacy deduplicated variant for comparison. Results show notable ranking differences between the two variants, with the fine-tuned reference model dropping about 12 points under the article-disjoint setting, while Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 achieves 0.5523 accuracy and 0.3894 contextual-F1 on the 842-example primary test set. BioDivergence offers a more faithful way to distinguish contextual divergence from direct contradiction and to separate article-level memorization from genuine task learning.

Industrial teams often deploy large language model features before stable regression or model selection evaluation exists. We present a reusable evaluation system for AI meeting summaries that combines structured ground-truth (GT) construction, fixed candidate generation, claim-grounded scoring, persisted reporting, and a privacy-bounded online monitoring and nomination interface. The online evidence is not itself a benchmark: privacy-safe aggregate exports show active monitoring, hard regime detection, and directional movement without exposing customer data. We benchmark the offline path on 114 meetings across city_council, private_data, and whitehouse_press_briefings, yielding 340 completed meeting-model pairs and 680 judge runs for gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-5-mini, and gpt-5.1. Under this fixed protocol, accuracy differences are not statistically significant under Holm correction (corrected p-values 0.053-0.448), although gpt-4.1-mini has the highest mean accuracy (0.583); the significant separation is on retention, where gpt-5.1 leads on completeness (0.886) and coverage (0.942). Typed slices isolate whitehouse_press_briefings as an accuracy-hard regime, and a later focused rerun over gpt-4.1, gpt-5-mini, and gpt-5.4 reuses the same stack under the same judges and metrics. This extended preprint keeps those core results aligned with the formal submission while adding a more detailed repository-level account of cross-domain reuse from the companion AI-search paper and an additional typed DeepEval contrastive analysis. Model naming note. Running text uses canonical model names on first introduction. Tables, filenames, and artifact IDs retain compact report labels for consistency with the packaged benchmark outputs. Table A maps the two conventions and is repeated in Section 4.3 where candidate-generation settings are defined.

Understanding how policy is debated and justified in parliament is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. However, the volume and complexity of such debates mean that outside audiences struggle to engage. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to enable automated summarisation at scale. While summaries of debates can make parliamentary procedures more accessible, evaluating whether these summaries faithfully communicate argumentative content remains challenging. Existing automated summarisation metrics have been shown to correlate poorly with human judgements of consistency (i.e., faithfulness or alignment between summary and source). In this work, we propose a formal framework for evaluating parliamentary debate summaries that grounds argument structures in the contested proposals up for debate. Our novel approach, driven by computational argumentation, focuses the evaluation on formal properties concerning the faithful preservation of the reasoning presented to justify or oppose policy outcomes. We demonstrate our methods using a case-study of debates from the European Parliament and associated LLM-driven summaries.

Evidence-grounded generation produces summaries whose claims should be supported by supplied evidence, but claim-level verifiers provide noisy feedback and can reward models that simply say less. We study this problem in clinical Brief Hospital Course summarization, where outputs must remain grounded in patient-specific EHR evidence. We introduce VERI-DPO, a preference-mining framework that converts noisy claim verification into coverage-controlled summary-level preferences. For each evidence-window prompt, VERI-DPO samples multiple candidate summaries, decomposes them into claims, verifies each claim against patient evidence, and forms a preference pair only when the chosen summary has better aggregate verifier-estimated support while retaining comparable verifiable content. Standard Direct Preference Optimization then distills these pairs into a single-sample policy, avoiding inference-time reranking. On patient-disjoint MIMIC-III-Ext-VeriFact-BHC test data, VERI-DPO reduces Not Supported rates from 10.7% to 1.9% under the mining verifier and from 11.6% to 6.4% under a separately prompted GPT-4o judge. In 100 blinded pairwise assessments by two domain researchers, VERI-DPO is preferred over the base model 56 times versus 18 times for factual faithfulness. In a locked zero-shot MIMIC-IV-Ext-BHC transfer test with 1,000 patients and no model adaptation, VERI-DPO lowers Not Supported rates with nearly unchanged scored-claim counts. Multi-seed ablations show that verifier-guided pair construction drives the gains, while coverage and anti-degeneration controls prevent apparent factuality improvements from coming from shorter or less checkable outputs.

Uncertainty quantification has emerged as an effective approach to closed-book hallucination detection for LLMs, but existing methods are largely designed for short-form outputs and do not generalize well to long-form generation. We introduce a taxonomy for fine-grained uncertainty quantification in long-form LLM outputs that distinguishes methods by design choices at three stages: response decomposition, unit-level scoring, and response-level aggregation. We formalize several families of consistency-based black-box scorers, providing generalizations and extensions of existing methods. We also introduce FactScore-STEM-Geo, a new 400-question long-form QA dataset spanning four categories across STEM and Geography. In our experiments across multiple LLMs and datasets, we find 1) claim-response entailment consistently performs better or on par with more complex claim-level scorers, 2) claim-level scoring generally yields better results than sentence-level scoring, and 3) uncertainty-aware decoding is highly effective for improving the factuality of long-form outputs. Our framework clarifies relationships between prior methods, enables apples-to-apples comparisons, and provides practical guidance for selecting components for fine-grained UQ.

Hallucination in large language models (LLMs) remains an acute concern, contributing to the spread of misinformation and diminished public trust, particularly in high-risk domains. Among hallucination types, factuality is crucial, as it concerns a model's alignment with established world knowledge. Adversarial factuality, defined as the deliberate insertion of misinformation into prompts with varying levels of expressed confidence, tests a model's ability to detect and resist confidently framed falsehoods. Existing work lacks high-quality, domain-specific resources for assessing model robustness under such adversarial conditions, and no prior research has examined the impact of injected misinformation on long-form text factuality. To address this gap, we introduce AdversaRiskQA, the first verified and reliable benchmark systematically evaluating adversarial factuality across Health, Finance, and Law. The benchmark includes two difficulty levels to test LLMs' defensive capabilities across varying knowledge depths. We propose two automated methods for evaluating the adversarial attack success and long-form factuality. We evaluate six open- and closed-source LLMs from the Qwen, GPT-OSS, and GPT families, measuring misinformation detection rates. Long-form factuality is assessed on Qwen3 (30B) under both baseline and adversarial conditions. Results show that after excluding meaningless responses, Qwen3 (80B) achieves the highest average accuracy, while GPT-5 maintains consistently high accuracy. Performance scales non-linearly with model size, varies by domains, and gaps between difficulty levels narrow as models grow. Long-form evaluation reveals no significant correlation between injected misinformation and the model's factual output. AdversaRiskQA provides a valuable benchmark for pinpointing LLM weaknesses and developing more reliable models for high-stakes applications.

Large language models (LLMs) now support contexts of up to 1M tokens, but their strengths and weaknesses on complex long-context tasks remain unclear. To study this, we focus on multi-document legal case summarization, where a single case often spans many documents exceeding 100K tokens. We systematically evaluate 12 frontier LLMs with Gavel, which consists of Gavel-Ref, a reference-based evaluation framework with checklist, residual-fact, and writing-style evaluations, and Gavel-Agent, a reference-free agent for evaluating factual coverage directly from source documents. Our results show that current models are more prone to omitting key information than hallucinating. They all perform well on simple checklist items, such as filing date, but struggle with rare and complex items, such as settlements. Performance also declines as case length increases. To meta-evaluate Gavel, we collect 160 hours of human annotations. Gavel-Agent reduces token usage by at least 36% compared to end-to-end and chunk-by-chunk methods while achieving competitive performance. Gavel-Agent also generalizes to the medical domain, performing the best with at least 77% fewer tokens.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly used for question-answering (QA), relying on static, pre-annotated references for evaluation poses significant challenges in cost, scalability, and completeness. Meanwhile, using LLMs themselves as evaluators without external grounding remains unreliable for objective tasks, as they systematically over-accept incorrect answers, fabricate supporting rationales, and degrade sharply on questions that fall outside their training data. We propose Search-AuGmented Evaluation (SAGE), a framework to assess LLM outputs without fixed ground-truth answers. Unlike conventional metrics that compare to static references or depend solely on LLM-as-a-judge knowledge, SAGE acts as an agent that actively retrieves and synthesizes external evidence. It iteratively generates web queries, collects information, summarizes findings, and refines subsequent searches through reflection. By reducing dependence on static reference-driven evaluation protocols, SAGE offers a scalable and adaptive alternative for evaluating the factuality of LLMs. Experimental results on multiple free-form QA benchmarks show that SAGE achieves substantial to perfect agreement with human evaluations.

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.