Rui Xing

Fact-checking long-form text is challenging, and it is therefore common practice to break it down into multiple atomic claims. The typical approach to fact-checking these atomic claims involves retrieving a fixed number of pieces of evidence, followed by a verification step. However, this method is usually not cost-effective, as it underutilizes the verification model’s internal knowledge of the claim and fails to replicate the iterative reasoning process in human search strategies. To address these limitations, we propose FIRE, a novel agent-based framework that integrates evidence retrieval and claim verification in an iterative manner. Specifically, FIRE employs a unified mechanism to decide whether to provide a final answer or generate a subsequent search query, based on its confidence in the current judgment. We compare FIRE with other strong fact-checking frameworks and find that it achieves slightly better performance while reducing large language model (LLM) costs by an average of 7.6 times and search costs by 16.5 times. These results indicate that FIRE holds promise for application in large-scale fact-checking operations.

Automated fact-checking systems often struggle with trustworthiness, as their generated explanations can include hallucinations. In this work, we explore evidence attribution for fact-checking explanation generation. We introduce a novel evaluation protocol, citation masking and recovery, to assess attribution quality in generated explanations. We implement our protocol using both human annotators and automatic annotators and found that LLM annotation correlates with human annotation, suggesting that attribution assessment can be automated. Finally, our experiments reveal that: (1) the best-performing LLMs still generate explanations that are not always accurate in their attribution; and (2) human-curated evidence is essential for generating better explanations.

Climate change is an existential threat to humanity, the proliferation of unsubstantiated claims relating to climate science is manipulating public perception, motivating the need for fact-checking in climate science. In this work, we draw on recent work that uses retrieval-augmented generation for veracity prediction and explanation generation, in framing explanation generation as a query-focused multi-document summarization task. We adapt PRIMERA to the climate science domain by adding additional global attention on claims. Through automatic evaluation and qualitative analysis, we demonstrate that our method is effective at generating explanations.