Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

What Changes When Fact-Verification Scores Improve? Evidence and Answer Accounting Across Trained Verifiers and LLMs

Summary

arXiv:2609.27064v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A joint fact-verification score assesses answers and submitted evidence together. When the score improves, how much of the gain remains if the answers are held fixed? On FEVEROUS, strict score is the percentage of claims with a correct answer and a complete annotated evidence group in the submitted evidence. Across four trained DeBERTa checkpoints and 7,890 claims, replacing DCUF evidence with UnifEE evidence raises strict score by 9.61 percentage points, compared with 1.96 percentage points in answer accuracy. The paired 95% interval for the strict-score gain is [8.77, 10.43], conditional on these checkpoints. Replacing only the evidence passed to the scorer accounts for 7.92 or 9.08 percentage points when we retain the answers generated fr…

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Han Chen, Yingrui Li
What Changes When Fact-Verification Scores Improve? Evidence and Answer Accounting Across Trained Verifiers and LLMs
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 22 Sep 2026]

Title:What Changes When Fact-Verification Scores Improve? Evidence and Answer Accounting Across Trained Verifiers and LLMs

View a PDF of the paper titled What Changes When Fact-Verification Scores Improve? Evidence and Answer Accounting Across Trained Verifiers and LLMs, by Han Chen and 1 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:A joint fact-verification score assesses answers and submitted evidence together. When the score improves, how much of the gain remains if the answers are held fixed? On FEVEROUS, strict score is the percentage of claims with a correct answer and a complete annotated evidence group in the submitted evidence. Across four trained DeBERTa checkpoints and 7,890 claims, replacing DCUF evidence with UnifEE evidence raises strict score by 9.61 percentage points, compared with 1.96 percentage points in answer accuracy. The paired 95% interval for the strict-score gain is [8.77, 10.43], conditional on these checkpoints. Replacing only the evidence passed to the scorer accounts for 7.92 or 9.08 percentage points when we retain the answers generated from DCUF or UnifEE evidence, respectively. To examine how this evidence gain depends on evaluation choices, we generate 470,400 responses from two 8B LLMs on FEVER, FEVEROUS, and SciFact under two answer formats and two context budgets. Increasing context from 256 to 2,048 tokens raises the fixed-answer evidence gain on FEVEROUS by 3.84 and 3.10 percentage points for Qwen and Llama, respectively. The effects fall short of the prespecified cross-dataset criterion, while some intervals extend beyond the two-point small-effect bound. Post-hoc analyses quantify changes in answers and submitted evidence, and show when aggregate accuracy and evidence-coverage rates miss the claim-level pattern. The four answer-evidence score combinations reveal changes that endpoint and aggregate metrics leave unresolved.

Comments: 24 pages. Both authors contributed equally

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.27064 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.27064v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.27064

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Han Chen [view email] [v1] Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:02:40 UTC (76 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled What Changes When Fact-Verification Scores Improve? Evidence and Answer Accounting Across Trained Verifiers and LLMs, by Han Chen and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.27064v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A joint fact-verification score assesses answers and submitted evidence together. When the score improves, how much of the gain rem…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.