Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Contrastive Learning to Improve Retrieval for Real-world 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 2410.04657 v1 pith:RWJH3HC3 submitted 2024-10-07 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords claimsdatasetcontrastiveevidencefact-checkingveracityanswersaveritec
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Fact or Facsimile? Evaluating the Factual Robustness of Modern Retrievers

    cs.IR 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

  2. Uncovering the Bigger Picture: Comprehensive Event Understanding Via Diverse News Retrieval

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    NEWSCOPE adds sentence-level clustering and cluster-aware greedy reranking to dense news retrieval, reporting higher viewpoint diversity on two new benchmarks, at a small relevance cost.

Pith tools