Retrievers and rerankers built from LLMs score near random on the FACTOR factuality benchmark, far below their base models, and fail when correct answers are paraphrased.
Contrastive Learning to Improve Retrieval for Real-world Fact Checking
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Recent work on fact-checking addresses a realistic setting where models incorporate evidence retrieved from the web to decide the veracity of claims. A bottleneck in this pipeline is in retrieving relevant evidence: traditional methods may surface documents directly related to a claim, but fact-checking complex claims requires more inferences. For instance, a document about how a vaccine was developed is relevant to addressing claims about what it might contain, even if it does not address them directly. We present Contrastive Fact-Checking Reranker (CFR), an improved retriever for this setting. By leveraging the AVeriTeC dataset, which annotates subquestions for claims with human written answers from evidence documents, we fine-tune Contriever with a contrastive objective based on multiple training signals, including distillation from GPT-4, evaluating subquestion answers, and gold labels in the dataset. We evaluate our model on both retrieval and end-to-end veracity judgments about claims. On the AVeriTeC dataset, we find a 6\% improvement in veracity classification accuracy. We also show our gains can be transferred to FEVER, ClaimDecomp, HotpotQA, and a synthetic dataset requiring retrievers to make inferences.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.IR 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Fact or Facsimile? Evaluating the Factual Robustness of Modern Retrievers
Retrievers and rerankers built from LLMs score near random on the FACTOR factuality benchmark, far below their base models, and fail when correct answers are paraphrased.