Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Explainable Claim Verification via Knowledge-Grounded Reasoning with Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.05253 v2 pith:FMMR4BIB submitted 2023-10-08 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords claimexplanationsfolkreasoningverificationknowledge-groundedlargemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Claim verification plays a crucial role in combating misinformation. While existing works on claim verification have shown promising results, a crucial piece of the puzzle that remains unsolved is to understand how to verify claims without relying on human-annotated data, which is expensive to create at a large scale. Additionally, it is important for models to provide comprehensive explanations that can justify their decisions and assist human fact-checkers. This paper presents First-Order-Logic-Guided Knowledge-Grounded (FOLK) Reasoning that can verify complex claims and generate explanations without the need for annotated evidence using Large Language Models (LLMs). FOLK leverages the in-context learning ability of LLMs to translate the claim into a First-Order-Logic (FOL) clause consisting of predicates, each corresponding to a sub-claim that needs to be verified. Then, FOLK performs FOL-Guided reasoning over a set of knowledge-grounded question-and-answer pairs to make veracity predictions and generate explanations to justify its decision-making process. This process makes our model highly explanatory, providing clear explanations of its reasoning process in human-readable form. Our experiment results indicate that FOLK outperforms strong baselines on three datasets encompassing various claim verification challenges. Our code and data are available.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Entailed Between the Lines: Incorporating Implication into NLI

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper formalizes implied entailment as a four-way NLI label, builds the INLI dataset from existing implicature sources, and shows fine-tuned models can label implied vs explicit entailment and generalize across co...

  2. Detecting Manipulated Contents Using Knowledge-Grounded Inference

    cs.CL 2025-04 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Manicod combines live web retrieval with an LLM to detect zero-day manipulated news, reporting F1 0.856 on a new dataset of 4,270 manipulated headlines and large gains over existing benchmarks.

  3. LRCTI: A Large Language Model-Based Framework for Multi-Step Evidence Retrieval and Reasoning in Cyber Threat Intelligence Credibility Verification

    cs.CR 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    LRCTI uses an LLM to summarize threat reports, retrieve evidence in several rounds, and judge each claim credible or incredible, reporting strong F1 gains on CTI-200 and PolitiFact.

Pith tools