Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Ev2R: Evaluating Evidence Retrieval in Automated Fact-Checking

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 2411.05375 v2 pith:S2BBTGYB submitted 2024-11-08 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IRcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IRcs.LG
keywords evidenceevaluationtextsuperscriptapproachesadversarialautomatedclosedevaluate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Current automated fact-checking (AFC) approaches typically evaluate evidence either implicitly via the predicted verdicts or through exact matches with predefined closed knowledge sources, such as Wikipedia. However, these methods are limited due to their reliance on evaluation metrics originally designed for other purposes and constraints from closed knowledge sources. In this work, we introduce \textbf{\textcolor{skyblue}{Ev\textsuperscript{2}}\textcolor{orangebrown}{R}} which combines the strengths of reference-based evaluation and verdict-level proxy scoring. Ev\textsuperscript{2}R jointly assesses how well the evidence aligns with the gold references and how reliably it supports the verdict, addressing the shortcomings of prior methods. We evaluate Ev\textsuperscript{2}R against three types of evidence evaluation approaches: reference-based, proxy-reference, and reference-less baselines. Assessments against human ratings and adversarial tests demonstrate that Ev\textsuperscript{2}R consistently outperforms existing scoring approaches in accuracy and robustness. It achieves stronger correlation with human judgments and greater robustness to adversarial perturbations, establishing it as a reliable metric for evidence evaluation in AFC.\footnote{Code is available at \href{https://github.com/mubasharaak/fc-evidence-evaluation}{https://github.com/mubasharaak/fc-evidence-evaluation}.}

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Team HUMANE at AVeriTeC 2025: HerO 2 for Efficient Fact Verification

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HerO 2 achieves second place in the AVeriTeC 2025 fact-checking shared task with an AVeriTeC score of 0.271 and the shortest runtime (29.19 seconds per claim) among the top three systems.

  2. FActBench: A Benchmark for Fine-grained Automatic Evaluation of LLM-Generated Text in the Medical Domain

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Unanimous voting between NLI and chain-of-thought fact-checking yields scores closest to medical expert judgments on three of four tasks in the new FActBench benchmark.

  3. The Next Phase of Scientific Fact-Checking: Advanced Evidence Retrieval from Complex Structured Academic Papers

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper proposes a full-paper, evidence-aware retrieval agenda for scientific fact-checking and shows that combining verification feedback with semantic reranking improves evidence recall on SciFact-Open and Check-COVID.

Pith tools