pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.13262 · v1 · pith:GTI5DRS4new · submitted 2026-06-11 · 💻 cs.AI

From Verdict to Process: Agentic Reinforcement Learning for Multi-Stage Fact Verification

Rongxin Yang , Shenghong He , Siyuan Zhu , Chao Yu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 06:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords fact verificationreinforcement learningmulti-stage workflowsagentic systemsprocess-aware rewardstrajectory optimizationveracity predictionLLM agents
0
0 comments X

The pith

A unified reinforcement learning policy coordinates the full multi-stage fact verification workflow with process-aware rewards.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to demonstrate that training a single policy end-to-end with reinforcement learning can coordinate claim decomposition, evidence seeking, answer generation, and verdict prediction more effectively than optimizing each stage separately. Isolated training or fixed rules often produce compounding errors because stages cannot adapt to one another based on intermediate outcomes. By supplying reward signals at every stage rather than only at the final verdict, the method supplies learning signals that address sparse final labels. A sympathetic reader would care because this framing turns fact verification into an adaptive trajectory that can be improved without extra human annotations for each step.

Core claim

ProFact trains a unified policy via agentic reinforcement learning to coordinate claim decomposition, evidence seeking, answer generation, and verdict prediction in multi-stage fact verification. Process-aware rewards supply stage-level learning signals to address the sparse and delayed supervision from final veracity labels. The resulting end-to-end optimization consistently outperforms strong baselines in both verification performance and inference efficiency.

What carries the argument

The unified policy trained by agentic reinforcement learning together with process-aware rewards that deliver intermediate signals across the verification trajectory.

If this is right

  • Adaptive coordination among stages replaces fixed heuristics and isolated optimization.
  • Stage-level signals mitigate the sparsity of final veracity labels during training.
  • End-to-end trajectory optimization yields both higher accuracy and lower inference cost.
  • The same policy can adjust its behavior at any point based on earlier stage outcomes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same process-reward structure could be tested on other multi-step language-agent tasks such as multi-hop question answering.
  • If the rewards require no extra labels, the approach reduces dependence on dense human feedback for training reasoning agents.
  • The learned policy might reveal which stages most often cause verification failures, enabling targeted improvements.

Load-bearing premise

Process-aware rewards can be designed to give useful stage-level signals that improve final veracity prediction without introducing new biases or needing extra human labels.

What would settle it

An ablation that removes the process-aware rewards and measures whether the reported gains in accuracy and efficiency disappear or reverse on the same evaluation sets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13262 by Chao Yu, Rongxin Yang, Shenghong He, Siyuan Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of ProFact. ProFact verifies claims through a multi-stage evidence-grounded trajectory involving claim decomposition, evidence retrieval, and veracity prediction, and optimizes this trajectory end-to-end with reinforce￾ment learning. decomposing complex claims into verification questions and grounding reasoning in external evidence, LLM-based systems can produce more transparent and evidence-aware… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the Search stage. Among the three stages, the Search stage plays a central role because it directly determines the quality of the evidence available for downstream reasoning and final verdict prediction. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent approaches combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with retrieval-augmented reasoning have shown promise for automated fact verification. To process complex claims, these verification pipelines typically execute multi-stage workflows that coordinate tightly coupled modules, including claim decomposition, evidence gathering, and verdict prediction. However, existing methods optimize individual stages in isolation or rely on fixed heuristics, which limits adaptive coordination among stages and can lead to suboptimal outcomes. In this work, we propose ProFact, an agentic reinforcement learning framework for end-to-end optimization of multi-stage fact verification trajectories. ProFact trains a unified policy to coordinate claim decomposition, evidence seeking, answer generation, and verdict prediction. To address the sparse and delayed supervision provided by final veracity labels, ProFact introduces process-aware rewards that provide stage-level learning signals throughout the verification process. Empirical evaluation shows that ProFact consistently outperforms strong baselines in both verification performance and inference efficiency. These results highlight the effectiveness of process-aware trajectory optimization for multi-stage fact verification.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces ProFact, an agentic reinforcement learning framework for end-to-end optimization of multi-stage fact verification. It trains a unified policy to coordinate claim decomposition, evidence seeking, answer generation, and verdict prediction. Process-aware rewards are proposed to provide stage-level learning signals to address the sparsity of final veracity labels. The paper claims that this leads to consistent outperformance over strong baselines in both verification performance and inference efficiency.

Significance. If the results hold, the work could contribute to the field by demonstrating the value of process-aware rewards in agentic RL for complex reasoning tasks, potentially leading to more efficient and accurate automated fact verification systems.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.2] §4.2 (Reward Formulation): The process-aware rewards are introduced specifically to address sparse final labels; without the explicit reward formulation, it is unclear whether they reduce to functions of the final veracity label itself, which would undermine the claim of providing additional stage-level signals.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of outperformance is stated without reference to the specific datasets, baselines, metrics, or statistical tests used, which limits immediate assessment of the empirical contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the single major comment below and will revise the paper to incorporate the requested clarification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (Reward Formulation): The process-aware rewards are introduced specifically to address sparse final labels; without the explicit reward formulation, it is unclear whether they reduce to functions of the final veracity label itself, which would undermine the claim of providing additional stage-level signals.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit mathematical formulation of the process-aware rewards should have been included in §4.2. The rewards are constructed as a weighted sum of stage-specific terms: R_decomp based on sub-claim quality (coverage, non-redundancy), R_retrieve based on evidence relevance and sufficiency per sub-claim (independent of the final verdict), and R_verdict based on veracity accuracy. These intermediate terms are not functions of the final label alone and are intended to supply dense signals. In the revision we will add the full equations, including the weighting scheme and how each term is computed from process traces, to make this explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper describes a standard agentic RL setup for multi-stage fact verification, introducing process-aware rewards to densify sparse final veracity labels. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are quoted that reduce any claimed prediction or result to its inputs by construction. The central claim of improved performance via unified policy and stage-level rewards is presented as an empirical outcome rather than a tautological redefinition or fitted-input prediction. No load-bearing self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the abstract or described content. This is a self-contained proposal whose validity rests on external benchmarks, not internal equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit parameters, axioms, or new entities; all technical details are absent.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5704 in / 987 out tokens · 15546 ms · 2026-06-27T06:45:15.102269+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aly, R., Guo, Z., Schlichtkrull, M., Thorne, J., Vlachos, A., Christodoulopoulos, C., Cocarascu, O., Mittal, A.: The fact extraction and verification over unstructured and structured information (feverous) shared task (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Augenstein, I., Lioma, C., Wang, D., Lima, L.C., Hansen, C., Hansen, C., Simonsen, J.G.: Multifc: A real-world multi-domain dataset for evidence-based fact checking of claims (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Feng, L., Xue, Z., Liu, T., An, B.: Group-in-group policy optimization for llm agent training (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10978

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Zhang, R., Ma, S., Bi, X., et al.: Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Guo, Z., Schlichtkrull, M., Vlachos, A.: A survey on automated fact-checking (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    He, H., Li, Y., Wen, D., Chen, Y., Cheng, R., Chen, D., Lau, F.C.: Debating truth: Debate-driven claim verification with multiple large language model agents (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    Jin, B., Zeng, H., Yue, Z., Yoon, J., Arik, S., Wang, D., Zamani, H., Han, J.: Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09516 Agentic RL for Multi-Stage Fact Verification 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Khaliq, M.A., Chang, P.Y.C., Ma, M., Pflugfelder, B., Miletić, F.: Ragar, your false- hood radar: Rag-augmented reasoning for political fact-checking using multimodal large language models (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.t., Rocktäschel, T., et al.: Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09479 (2023)

    McKenzie, I.R., Lyzhov, A., Pieler, M., Parrish, A., Mueller, A., Prabhu, A., McLean, E., Kirtland, A., Ross, A., Liu, A., et al.: Inverse scaling: When bigger isn’t better. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09479 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C.L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., Schulman, J., Hilton, J., Kelton, F., Miller, L., Simens, M., Askell, A., Welinder, P., Christiano, P., Leike, J., Lowe, R.: Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022),https:// arxiv.org/abs/2203.02155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Rothermel, M., Braun, T., Rohrbach, M., Rohrbach, A.: Infact: A strong baseline for automated fact-checking (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Schlichtkrull, M., Guo, Z., Vlachos, A.: Averitec: A dataset for real-world claim verification with evidence from the web (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Shao, Z., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Song, J., Bi, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, M., Li, Y.K., Wu, Y., Guo, D.: Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Thorne, J., Vlachos, A., Cocarascu, O., Christodoulopoulos, C., Mittal, A.: The fact extraction and verification (fever) shared task (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Vykopal, I., Pikuliak, M., Ostermann, S., Šimko, M.: Generative large language models in automated fact-checking: A survey (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Wang, Z., Wang, K., Wang, Q., Zhang, P., Li, L., Yang, Z., Jin, X., Yu, K., Nguyen, M.N., Liu, L., Gottlieb, E., Lu, Y., Cho, K., Wu, J., Fei-Fei, L., Wang, L., Choi, Y., Li, M.: Ragen: Understanding self-evolution in llm agents via multi-turn reinforcement learning (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q.V., Zhou, D., et al.: Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    Xia, T., Xu, M., Hu, L., Sun, Y., Li, W., Shang, L., Liu, L., Shu, P., Yu, H., Jiang, J.: Search-p1: Path-centric reward shaping for stable and efficient agentic rag training (2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K.R., Cao, Y.: React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Yoon, Y., Jung, J., Yoon, S., Park, K.: Hero at averitec: The herd of open large language models for verifying real-world claims (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Zhang, X., Gao, W.: Towards llm-based fact verification on news claims with a hierarchical step-by-step prompting method (2023)

    2023