Fact-checking is necessary to address the increasing volume of misinformation. Traditional fact-checking relies on manual analysis to verify claims, but it is slow and resource-intensive. This study establishes baseline comparisons for Automated Fact-Checking (AFC) using Large Language Models (LLMs) across multiple labeling schemes (binary, three-class, five-class) and extends traditional claim verification by incorporating analysis, verdict classification, and explanation in a structured setup to provide comprehensive justifications for real-world claims. We evaluate Llama-3 models of varying sizes (3B, 8B, 70B) on 17,856 claims collected from PolitiFact (2007-2024) using evidence retrieved via restricted web searches. We utilize TIGERScore as a reference-free evaluation metric to score the justifications. Our results show that larger LLMs consistently outperform smaller LLMs in classification accuracy and justification quality without fine-tuning. We find that smaller LLMs in a one-shot scenario provide comparable task performance to fine-tuned Small Language Models (SLMs) with large context sizes, while larger LLMs consistently surpass them. Evidence integration improves performance across all models, with larger LLMs benefiting most. Distinguishing between nuanced labels remains challenging, emphasizing the need for further exploration of labeling schemes and alignment with evidences. Our findings demonstrate the potential of retrieval-augmented AFC with LLMs.

Automated fact-checking is an important task because determining the accurate status of a proposed claim within the vast amount of information available online is a critical challenge. This challenge requires robust evaluation to prevent the spread of false information. Modern large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated high capability in performing a diverse range of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. By utilizing proper prompting strategies, their versatility due to their understanding of large context sizes and zero-shot learning ability enables them to simulate human problem-solving intuition and move towards being an alternative to humans for solving problems. In this work, we introduce a straightforward framework based on Zero-Shot Learning and Key Points (ZSL-KeP) for automated fact-checking, which despite its simplicity, performed well on the AVeriTeC shared task dataset by robustly improving the baseline and achieving 10th place.

Automatic fact-checking plays a crucial role in combating the spread of misinformation. Large Language Models (LLMs) and Instruction-Following variants, such as InstructGPT and Alpaca, have shown remarkable performance in various natural language processing tasks. However, their knowledge may not always be up-to-date or sufficient, potentially leading to inaccuracies in fact-checking. To address this limitation, we propose combining the power of instruction-following language models with external evidence retrieval to enhance fact-checking performance. Our approach involves leveraging search engines to retrieve relevant evidence for a given input claim. This external evidence serves as valuable supplementary information to augment the knowledge of the pretrained language model. Then, we instruct-tune an open-sourced language model, called LLaMA, using this evidence, enabling it to predict the veracity of the input claim more accurately. To evaluate our method, we conducted experiments on two widely used fact-checking datasets: RAWFC and LIAR. The results demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in fact-checking tasks. By integrating external evidence, we bridge the gap between the model's knowledge and the most up-to-date and sufficient context available, leading to improved fact-checking outcomes. Our findings have implications for combating misinformation and promoting the dissemination of accurate information on online platforms. Our released materials are accessible at: https://thcheung.github.io/factllama.