Noisy Claim Verification

Frozen vision-language models (VLMs) remain unreliable on fine-grained left-right claims, and raw claim likelihoods need not reliably rank verification errors. After a horizontal-reflection intervention is fixed, how should its induced likelihood measurements be combined into a selective verification signal? We introduce Relation-Orbit, a closed-form contrast with no learned fusion parameters that assigns eight normalized likelihoods to query-supporting and counterfactual roles determined by reflection, inverse relation, and entity exchange. A claim is asserted only when the signed contrast exceeds a threshold selected on held-out data using pointwise Clopper-Pearson upper confidence bounds. On VSR and GQA across four frozen VLMs, Relation-Orbit yields higher mean test coverage at a 10% selective-risk calibration target than an all-eight Orbit-Max baseline in all eight dataset-backbone settings; gains over a nearly abstain-all one-sided intervention score are reported separately. A separate LLaVA-1.5/COCO evaluation, reduced-orbit controls, and a two-sided partition diagnostic further characterize the structural advantage.

Agent evaluations face two distinct evidentiary questions: whether a reported claim is recomputable from retained evidence (sufficiency), and whether the retained records cover the committed experiment set (coverage). Generic logs and hash-linked transcripts answer neither reliably. We introduce ClaimReceipt, a claim-relative receipt specification and selective verifier that binds typed transaction evidence to a signed experiment manifest and returns PASS, INVALID, or INCONCLUSIVE per claim. We freeze the specification before implementation (SHA-256 18d109...b81). On 1,392 historical buyer--seller records, a CR-2 verifier reproduces all five manually labeled audit verdicts, exactly replays 600 deterministic and 792 post-generation records, makes every one of 13 declared field groups non-redundant under tested ablations, and returns the expected result on 11/11 semantic faults with 0/8 false positives. We then run a separate prospective CR-3 epoch: 30 assignments are committed before inference, terminal receipts are signed and chained, and private evidence is encrypted for an auditor. Complete evidence yields coverage and accounting PASS; withholding one terminal receipt returns INCONCLUSIVE_COVERAGE, while withholding all private openings preserves coverage and protocol verification but makes economic claims inconclusive, exactly matching a preregistered prediction. Receipt instrumentation adds 0.021% of model-inference time and 9.9 KB per transaction. A specification-legibility probe indicates that our own frozen specification is not yet unambiguous to an independent reader. Claim verification therefore requires both claim-sufficient evidence and a committed universe against which omissions become visible.

Vision Language Models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in interpreting static visual artifacts, but modern data analysis is inherently dynamic, requiring the active interrogation of interactive environments. Existing benchmarks are predominantly constrained to static imagery and one-shot question answering and fail to capture the epistemic demands of this domain, where evidence is frequently occluded, distributed across linked views, or conditionally revealed through user agency. In this paper, we introduce InSight, a benchmark for agentic claim verification over interactive visualizations. The dataset consists of 21,349 claims derived from human-authored analytical narratives and grounded in fully interactive web-based environments. Agents must navigate these environments to determine whether a natural language claim is supported, refuted or not verifiable given the available evidence. Unlike traditional evaluations, InSight treats interaction traces as intrinsic proxies for reasoning, enabling a rigorous audit of how models seek and synthesize visual evidence. We evaluate state-of-the-art models, revealing that interactive verification remains a non-trivial challenge. We release InSight at https://github.com/maevehutch/insight.

We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scientific claims against the tables and figures of a paper. Rather than tuning a single model, we benchmark eleven frontier and open multimodal models under one honest, per-sample protocol and combine them with light, transparent post-processing. On the official, blind test leaderboard (Section~\ref{sec:results}), SciTrue placed first by a clear margin in three of the four evidence-category/subtask combinations, and tied for first on the primary metric in the fourth. Three findings explain the result. First, strong instruction-tuned models are already competitive: Claude Opus4.8 and Gemma-4-31B each exceed the strongest public baseline (o4-mini), and GPT-5.5 and Claude Fable5 lead both subtasks (97.7 on Subtask~2). Second, the task's pairing structure is the largest lever: a \emph{leak-free pair prior} that recovers the Supported/Refuted pairing from the claim text alone (a visible field) and assigns Supported to the higher-confidence evidence raises Subtask-1 pair-accuracy from 72.2 to 93.5, far more than any model swap or ensemble weighting. Third, a case-by-case audit finds that most residual errors are visually-undetectable label-mapping swaps or dataset label noise, so measured accuracy understates the true ability and the fixable-by-modeling headroom is small. Controlled fine-tuning, distillation, and agentic consistency-checking support the same conclusions, and we document throughout a measurement leak---label information reaching a system through the packaging of the data rather than its content---in which the released file ordering encodes the label, including one instance that briefly misled our own pipeline.

Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text. To close this gap, we present CLAIR-Fin, a nine-agent framework that decomposes each question into atomic claims maintained in a typed Financial Claim Ledger. Each claim is resolved through Asymmetric Evidence Authority, which conditions evidence trust on claim type rather than treating all modalities as equally reliable; Chain-of-Custody Verification, which checks grounding at the hand-off between drafting and adversarial review rather than only at the pipeline's exit; an Adaptive Rebuttal Cycle, which routes contested claims through adversarial debate whose depth scales with what that debate finds; and a terminal entailment audit paired with a continuous Hallucination Risk Index that distinguishes claims that passed scrutiny from claims never contested. We evaluate CLAIR-Fin on BB-FinQA-X, a 500-question cross-modal financial evaluation set built from Bangladesh Bank Annual Report material, stratified by query type, format, and difficulty. Relative to a single-pass retrieval-augmented generation baseline, it raises faithfulness ($0.780 \rightarrow 0.889$) while abstaining on 5.4% of questions when evidence is insufficient rather than forcing an unsupported response, and it exceeds stronger retrieval-strategy baselines such as HyDE and Graph-RAG on faithfulness ($\leq 0.874$).

Scientific claim verification over a cited paper requires predicting the claim--paper relation and identifying the paragraphs that justify that prediction. This setting poses two linked challenges: within-paper distractors often resemble genuine evidence, while a classifier trained on gold evidence must operate on retrieved evidence at inference. We present HNR-DAC, a two-stage framework that trains each stage on the cases it will actually encounter. Hard-Negative Reranking (HNR) quantifies evidence confusability using a base reranker's scores on non-gold paragraphs and contrasts gold evidence against the most confusable candidates. Distribution-Aligned Classification (DAC) trains on the Top-1 paragraph produced by the same frozen HNR used to construct inference inputs, while HNR's Top-3 paragraph identifiers provide the evidence output. On the NLPCC 2026 Task 10 Track 2, the final configuration obtains 97.21% Hit@3, 95.79% Macro-F1, 94.47% Joint@3, and an average score of 95.13%. The corresponding submission ranks third on the official Track 2 leaderboard while achieving the highest overall Macro-F1 of 93.05%, alongside 70.16% Joint@3 and an average score of 81.61%.

Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions. Yet a completed trajectory is not automatically evidence: generated artifacts may be unsupported or incomplete, executed rounds may be invalid or confounded, and later modifications may obscure earlier findings. We study \textbf{trajectory-to-evidence conversion}, asking what a completed research process has actually established. We introduce an evidence-grounded framework that couples bounded verification of consequential artifacts with post-execution claim qualification. A context-isolated generate--verify--repair process checks artifacts for evidence violations and missing downstream requirements before release. After execution, validity and attribution checks consolidate evidence across rounds, qualify intervention-level claims as actionable repairs, diagnostic guards, or withheld findings, and preserve admitted claims as auditable records with explicit provenance and applicability boundaries. A hybrid LLM-assisted controller subsequently applies, defers, or rejects records based on available target evidence. Record audits characterize which claims survive qualification, while downstream diagnostics identify affirmative applicability judgment as a bottleneck for the tested controller. Across paper-to-target adaptations, later rounds often improve on the first, while final rounds frequently underperform an earlier best, exposing non-monotonic trajectory evolution. Candidates produced through the complete workflow also yielded positive online lifts relative to deployed baselines.

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.

Agentic AI introduces new insurance challenges because autonomous AI systems can make decisions, invoke tools, modify external environments, and interact with third-party services. This paper develops an AI-native mathematical framework for underwriting, pricing, and contract design for agentic AI deployments. A deployment is represented by a risk state that captures autonomy level, operational authority, permission exposure, governance maturity, and dependency concentration. The framework maps the risk state to event probabilities, loss severities, governance costs, premiums, deductibles, coverage allocation, and policy covenants, and formulates an optimization problem for insurance contract design under participation, profitability, and incentive compatibility constraints. The paper establishes structural properties of insurability, including characterization of an insurability region, monotone deterioration of feasibility with increasing exposure, and governance certification thresholds. Insurance is further interpreted as both an operational cost and a regulatory mechanism for AI deployment. A healthcare case study illustrates contract optimization, sensitivity analysis, and automated claims processing for agentic AI systems.

In this paper, we introduce Claim-Level Rubric Rewards (CuRe), a structured reward framework designed to address the reward-design bottleneck in reinforcement learning for dense video captioning. Existing reward designs generally fall into two categories: holistic response-level judgment across heterogeneous criteria, or alignment-based evaluation against reference captions. However, both paradigms suffer from fundamental limitations. Holistic rewards struggle to ensure factual accuracy and are prone to stylistic reward hacking, while reference-based rewards overly rely on rigid textual alignment, failing to preserve the completeness and diversity inherent to open-ended generation tasks. To address these challenges, CuRe reformulates reward modeling as fine-grained claim-level verification. Specifically, CuRe decomposes captions into category-aware atomic claims through a structured rubric, converting holistic evaluation into simpler and more reliable claim-level verification.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly expected to generate fine-grained descriptions of visual content. However, we observe and theoretically show that generating fine-grained responses poses a reliability challenge, \textit{i.e.}, fine-grained generation is more error-prone than coarse-grained generation. This phenomenon suggests that models should generate the finest description that remains reliable rather than simply produce more specific outputs. To investigate this problem, we develop \textsc{GranFact}, a granularity-aware benchmark consisting of expert-verified multi-object images with coarse-to-fine category annotations. Then, we design a hierarchy-aware evaluation algorithm, which assesses both whether model predictions are visually correct and how specific the correct predictions are. We also propose a reliability-prioritized preference optimization method based on Direct Preference Optimization, which penalizes unreliable fine-grained claims while rewarding reliable specificity. Experiments on \textsc{GranFact} show that our method improves fine-grained generation while preserving reliability. Code and data are available \href{https://github.com/WeiWu2025/GranFact}{here}.

The rapid spread of fake news poses increasing threats to information ecosystems, especially as AI-generated misinformation under Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) poisoning allows adversarially crafted content to be systematically surfaced by retrieval systems, contaminating LLM reasoning. In this paper, we propose Tree of Evidence (ToE), a hierarchical evidence reasoning framework for automated fact-checking that models each claim as a dynamically expanding argument tree. ToE integrates a reinforcement learning-driven multi-source retrieval agent, an evidence evaluation agent, and an argument tree aggregation algorithm to iteratively decompose, retrieve, and verify claims through an explainable evidence chain. We further provide a theoretical analysis of the retrieval process, deriving a formal error bound that guarantees the learned policy converges to a neighborhood of the information-theoretically optimal policy. Experiments across multiple datasets and backbone LLMs demonstrate that ToE achieves improvements ranging from 4 to 24 percentage points over competitive baselines, with particularly pronounced gains on adversarially poisoned inputs.

Large language models are increasingly used to answer questions over annual reports, earnings decks, and analyst notes, yet their outputs remain difficult to verify in high-stakes financial workflows. A fluent answer can blend directly grounded statements, weak synthesis, and unsupported claims across narrative text, tables, and charts. We present EvidenceLens, a visual analytics prototype that treats financial question answering as a claim-evidence alignment problem. The system decomposes an answer into atomic claims, summarizes support composition and confidence, support gaps, and coordinates claim-level inspection with source passages, table cells, and chart regions. Its core visual representation is a multimodal claim-evidence matrix that makes coverage, contradiction, and modality imbalance immediately visible. To support reproducibility, we also specify a JSON-based artifact schema, a lightweight multimodal alignment pipeline, and a deterministic review-priority ranking that maps backend signals into an auditable visual structure. Through representative report-auditing scenarios, we show how EvidenceLens helps analysts distinguish grounded claims from overconfident synthesis that conventional chat interfaces flatten.

Language-model unlearning updates a trained model to behave as if it had not seen selected training examples, while preserving utility and avoiding costly retraining. Existing approaches typically fine-tune the pretrained model with a fixed training budget and select the final model afterwards by evaluating several saved checkpoints on downstream validation data. Two sources of unnecessary computation limit scalability: training beyond the desired forget-retain trade-off, and checkpoint selection that requires extra storage and repeated evaluations. To address these limitations, we introduce MArgin Self-Correction (MASC), an efficient unlearning method with an online stopping rule that does not require downstream evaluation. Given a text sequence to be forgotten, MASC actively reduces the logit gap between the original next token and the most likely alternatives. It outputs a final model once this gap is small on average over a sufficiently large proportion of token positions across all forget sequences. On TOFU, MUSE News, and MUSE Books, MASC achieves a competitive forget-retain trade-off at a fraction of the computational cost of existing baselines. We further observe that as we increase model size (a.k.a. number of parameters), the trade-offs improve for both MASC and SimNPO -- the forget metrics remain comparable while retain utility increases.

Knowledge graphs over corpora of inter-referencing documents - scholarly papers, legal opinions, policy briefs - encode the topology of reference but not its stance. The standard representation collapses a rich evaluative relation into an untyped edge, losing the very content that supports community-level queries about how one document is received by another. We propose the claim network: a representational pattern in which each cross-document reference is reified as a typed claim, carrying source, target, claim text, and a four-class stance label grounded in the citation-intent literature. We give a construction pipeline applicable to any corpus of scholarly inter-referencing documents and instantiate it on a corpus of 127 papers in 3D point cloud semantic segmentation, producing a network of 8,260 typed claims. Three downstream task families demonstrate what the network enables: retrieval signal augmentation, aggregated-stance summarisation, and topological analytics. Head-to-head evaluation against standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) baselines shows that the gain over flat retrieval is the gain from the right intermediate representation rather than the wrong one.

Claim verification splits between end-to-end classifiers that are accurate but yields no inspectable traces, and decomposition-based methods produce inspectable traces but lag performance on benchmark datasets. We propose DecomposeRL an accurate claim-verifier that produce inspectable traces. DecomposeRL frames decomposition as an RL policy trained with GRPO and a multi-faceted reward ensemble, enabling both fully supervised and semi-supervised learning from unlabeled claims. DecomposeRL addresses the prohibitive training cost of GRPO with a data-curation funnel that distills 115K fact-verification claims into a compact, learning-signal-dense subset of 5K claims. We show that a DecomposeRL-7B policy trained with full supervision on only ~5K curated claims achieves 86.3 in-domain and 69.8 out-of-domain balanced accuracy across 11 claim-verification benchmarks containing biomedical, political, scientific, and general-domain claims. Despite being 4x smaller, it matches 32B baselines and GPT-4.1-mini, and it further outperforms baselines in a semi-supervised setting with only 10% labeled claims data. Code, data, and models are available at https://dipta007.github.io/DecomposeRL

Misalignment between claims and their cited evidence is a common failure mode in reports generated by large language models, limiting their reliability in scientific and other high-stakes settings. We present DeepSciVerify, a two-stage pipeline for scientific claim-citation verification that combines abstract-level reasoning with selective escalation to passage-level evidence. The system first verifies claims using the abstract and defers uncertain cases, retrieving and analyzing full-text passages only when necessary. This design leverages complementary behaviors across LLMs, as some models are more conservative while others are more decisive under uncertainty. On the SCitance benchmark, DeepSciVerify achieves 86.7 Micro-F1, outperforming strong abstract-only baselines by +4.5 points while resolving 67% of instances without full-text retrieval. These results suggest that selective evidence escalation improves both accuracy and efficiency in claim-citation verification.

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.

Medical RAG systems in high-risk QA settings are often evaluated through a single answer-or-abstain decision, but mixed evidence may support one claim, require conditions for another, and contradict a third. We study claim-selective certification: each response is decomposed into verifiable claims, scored against retrieved evidence, and mapped by an intent-aware selector to {full, partial, conflict, abstain}. On the primary weak-label certificate protocol, whose real-source-only dev/test rows cover the naturally occurring non-abstain actions, the full system records UCCR=0.0000, PAU=1.0000, PAU Precision=0.9901, and action accuracy=0.9204 on dev (n=314), and UCCR=0.0000, PAU=0.9967, PAU Precision=0.9739, and action accuracy=0.8997 on test (n=319). UCCR measures unsupported-claim risk within the certificate definition, and a source-missing counterfactual slice evaluates abstain under empty evidence. Shortcut controls quantify the action-label prior explained by source and intent metadata, while source/evidence-novel slices characterize transfer boundaries. The resulting interface separates action-label prediction from evidence-linked claim selection under mixed evidence.

Claim verification is an important problem in high-stakes settings, including health and finance. When information underpinning claims is incomplete or conflicting, uncertain answers may be more appropriate than binary true or false classifications. In all cases, faithful explanations of the considerations determining the final verdict are crucial. We introduce inference-time argumentation (ITA), a trainable neurosymbolic framework for ternary claim verification in which a formal argumentation semantics giving the strength of claims is used both (i) to guide LLM training as models learn to generate arguments and assign them base scores (representing intrinsic strengths) and (ii) to compute ternary (true/false/uncertain) predictions from generated, scored arguments. As a result, at training time, argument generation and scoring can be optimised according to the quality of the induced argumentative predictions. Moreover, at inference time, the final prediction is faithful, by construction, to the arguments and scores determining the verdict, rather than being justified by a potentially unfaithful post-hoc reasoning trace as in conventional reasoning models. We finally show that, on two datasets for ternary claim verification, ITA improves upon argumentative baselines and can perform competitively against non-argumentative direct-prediction baselines, while providing verdicts that are computed deterministically from explicit, inspectable argumentative structures.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated images have become increasingly realistic and readily adaptable to concrete real-world claims, creating new challenges for verifying visual evidence. A concrete emerging risk is AI-generated refund fraud, in which manipulated or synthetic images are used to support claims about damaged products, poor delivery conditions, or service-related defects. Existing AI-generated image detection benchmarks mainly evaluate standalone authenticity classification, cross-generator transfer, or forensic localization, leaving claim-conditioned fraudulent evidence detection underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce FraudBench, a multimodal benchmark for detecting AI-generated fraudulent refund evidence. FraudBench is constructed from real-world user-review evidence across e-commerce, food delivery, and travel-service scenarios. We curate real evidence images together with their associated review and product metadata, identify genuine damaged and undamaged evidence through MLLM-assisted filtering and human annotation, and synthesize fake-damaged evidence from genuine undamaged reference images using six state-of-the-art image editing and generation models. Using FraudBench, we evaluate MLLMs, specialized AI-generated image detectors, and human participants under the same settings. Experiments show that current MLLMs often recognize real-damaged evidence but fail on many fake-damaged subsets, with fake-damage detection rates (TPR) far below the 50% baseline on most generator subsets. Specialized detectors generally perform better but remain inconsistent across generators and can produce false positives on real-damaged samples, revealing a clear gap between generic AI image detection and reliable claim-conditioned refund-evidence verification.

Evidence derived from large-scale real-world data (RWD) is increasingly informing regulatory evaluation and healthcare decision-making. Administrative claims provide population-scale, longitudinal records of healthcare utilization, expenditure, and detailed coding of diagnoses, procedures, and medications, yet their potential as a substrate for healthcare foundation models remains largely unexplored. Here we present ReClaim, a generative transformer trained from scratch on 43.8 billion medical events from more than 200 million enrollees in the MarketScan claims data spanning 2008-2022. ReClaim models longitudinal trajectories across diagnoses, procedures, medications, and expenditure, and was scaled to 140 million, 700 million, and 1.7 billion parameters. Across over 1,000 disease-onset prediction tasks, ReClaim achieved a mean AUC of 75.6%, substantially outperforming disease-specific LightGBM (66.3%) and the transformer-based Delphi model (69.4%), with the largest gains for rare diseases. These advantages held across retrospective and prospective evaluations and in external validation on two independent datasets. Performance improved monotonically with scale, and post-training added 13.8 percentage points over pre-training alone. Beyond disease prediction, ReClaim captured financial outcomes and improved real-world evidence (RWE) analyses: for healthcare expenditure forecasting it increased explained variance from 0.28 to 0.37 relative to LightGBM, and in a target trial emulation it reduced systematic bias by 72% on average relative to Delphi. Together, these results establish administrative claims as a scalable substrate for healthcare foundation models and show that learned representations generalize across time periods and data sources, supporting disease surveillance, expenditure forecasting, and RWE generation.

With recent semantic query processing engines, semantic aggregation has become a primitive operator, enabling the reduction of a relation into a natural language aggregate using an LLM. However, the resulting semantic aggregate may contain claims that are not grounded in the underlying relation. Verifying such claims is challenging: they often involve quantifiers, groupings, and comparisons over relations that far exceed LLM context windows and require a costly combination of semantic and symbolic processing. We present Evergreen, a system that recasts claim verification as a semantic query processing task with tailored optimizations and provenance capture. Evergreen compiles each claim into a declarative semantic verification query that can execute on the same query engine used to produce the aggregate. To reduce cost, Evergreen avoids unnecessary LLM calls through verification-aware optimizations, including early stopping, relevance sorting, and estimation with confidence sequences, as well as general-purpose optimizations for semantic queries, such as operator fusion, similarity filtering, and prompt caching. Each verdict is accompanied by citations that identify a minimal set of tuples justifying the result, with semantics based on semiring provenance for first-order logic. On a benchmark of production-inspired workloads over restaurant review and customer support datasets, Evergreen's optimized configurations occupy the entire cost-quality Pareto frontier. With a strong LLM, Evergreen preserves verification quality at an F1 of 0.94 while reducing cost by 3.1x relative to unoptimized verification; with a substantially weaker LLM, it surpasses the strongest external baseline's F1 (0.87 vs. 0.83) at 7.0x lower cost.

Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).

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.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and which criteria to use; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. In addition to rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that current systems produce structurally plausible, evidence-citing reports, but still struggle to fully satisfy expert-level user requests and achieve logical completeness. Beyond performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.

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.

Machine Learning (ML) pipelines encode quality-relevant decisions across data preparation, training, evaluation, and configuration code. Some recurring source-level quality problems in these pipelines, known as ML code smells, may not cause immediate failures but can harm reproducibility, robustness, efficiency, or maintainability. Detecting ML code smell occurrences is challenging because the decisive evidence is often non-local, spanning helper functions, wrappers, imports, control-flow, and data-flow relations. We present SpecDetect4ML, a static analyser that operationalises 22 ML code smells using CPG views with project-level resolution. We evaluate it on 890 Python ML-based systems comprising more than 20M LOC and a system-level recall benchmark over the complete ML-relevant source subset of 10 selected systems. Under identical ML code smell specifications, CPG-based reasoning raises recall from 68.62% to 88.14% compared with AST-only analysis, while keeping CPG precision comparable at 90.32%. These results show that project-level static reasoning expands the detectable portion of non-local ML code smell occurrences, while configuration-dependent and runtime-only occurrences remain outside our source-only static claims.