Multilingual 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last week's audience sizes"---the reference answer changes as the underlying data changes, so static references become outdated and standard LLM-as-a-judge pipelines cannot verify responses against a fixed ground truth.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.

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.

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.

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 "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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.