Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit hallucinations, generating content that appears fluent and coherent but is factually incorrect. Such errors undermine trust and hinder their adoption in real-world applications. To address this challenge, two distinct research paradigms have emerged: model-centric Hallucination Detection (HD) and text-centric Fact Verification (FV). Despite sharing the same goal, these paradigms have evolved in isolation, using distinct assumptions, datasets, and evaluation protocols. This separation has created a research schism that hinders their collective progress. In this work, we take a decisive step toward bridging this divide. We introduce UniFact, a unified evaluation framework that enables direct, instance-level comparison between FV and HD by dynamically generating model outputs and corresponding factuality labels. Through large-scale experiments across multiple LLM families and detection methods, we reveal three key findings: (1) No paradigm is universally superior; (2) HD and FV capture complementary facets of factual errors; and (3) hybrid approaches that integrate both methods consistently achieve state-of-the-art performance. Beyond benchmarking, we provide the first in-depth analysis of why FV and HD diverged, as well as empirical evidence supporting the need for their unification. The comprehensive experimental results call for a new, integrated research agenda toward unifying Hallucination Detection and Fact Verification in LLMs. We have open-sourced all the code, data, and baseline implementation at: https://github.com/oneal2000/UniFact/

Table reasoning, including tabular QA and fact verification, often depends on annotated data or complex data augmentation, limiting flexibility and generalization. LLMs, despite their versatility, often underperform compared to simple supervised models. To approach these issues, we introduce PanelTR, a framework utilizing LLM agent scientists for robust table reasoning through a structured scientific approach. PanelTR's workflow involves agent scientists conducting individual investigations, engaging in self-review, and participating in collaborative peer-review discussions. This process, driven by five scientist personas, enables semantic-level transfer without relying on data augmentation or parametric optimization. Experiments across four benchmarks show that PanelTR outperforms vanilla LLMs and rivals fully supervised models, all while remaining independent of training data. Our findings indicate that structured scientific methodology can effectively handle complex tasks beyond table reasoning with flexible semantic understanding in a zero-shot context.

In this research, we combine Transformer-based relation extraction with matching of knowledge graphs (KGs) and apply them to answering multiple-choice questions (MCQs) while maintaining the traceability of the output process. KGs are structured representations of factual knowledge consisting of entities and relations. Due to the high construction cost, they had been regarded as static databases with validated links. However, the recent development of Transformer-based relation extraction (RE) methods has enabled us to generate KGs dynamically by giving them natural language texts, and thereby opened the possibility for representing the meaning of the input sentences with the created KGs. Using this effect, we propose a method that answers MCQs in the "fill-in-the-blank" format, taking care of the point that RE methods generate KGs that represent false information if provided with factually incorrect texts. We measure the truthfulness of each question sentence by (i) converting the sentence into a relational graph using an RE method and (ii) verifying it against factually correct KGs under the closed-world assumption. The experimental results demonstrate that our method correctly answers up to around 70% of the questions, while providing traceability of the procedure. We also highlight that the question category has a vast influence on the accuracy.

The proliferation of misinformation necessitates robust yet computationally efficient fact verification systems. While current state-of-the-art approaches leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating explanatory rationales, these methods face significant computational barriers and hallucination risks in real-world deployments. We present DeReC (Dense Retrieval Classification), a lightweight framework that demonstrates how general-purpose text embeddings can effectively replace autoregressive LLM-based approaches in fact verification tasks. By combining dense retrieval with specialized classification, our system achieves better accuracy while being significantly more efficient. DeReC outperforms explanation-generating LLMs in efficiency, reducing runtime by 95% on RAWFC (23 minutes 36 seconds compared to 454 minutes 12 seconds) and by 92% on LIAR-RAW (134 minutes 14 seconds compared to 1692 minutes 23 seconds), showcasing its effectiveness across varying dataset sizes. On the RAWFC dataset, DeReC achieves an F1 score of 65.58%, surpassing the state-of-the-art method L-Defense (61.20%). Our results demonstrate that carefully engineered retrieval-based systems can match or exceed LLM performance in specialized tasks while being significantly more practical for real-world deployment.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating fluent utterances but can lack reliable grounding in verified information. At the same time, knowledge-graph-based fact-checkers deliver precise and interpretable evidence, yet suffer from limited coverage or latency. By integrating LLMs with knowledge graphs and real-time search agents, we introduce a hybrid fact-checking approach that leverages the individual strengths of each component. Our system comprises three autonomous steps: 1) a Knowledge Graph (KG) Retrieval for rapid one-hop lookups in DBpedia, 2) an LM-based classification guided by a task-specific labeling prompt, producing outputs with internal rule-based logic, and 3) a Web Search Agent invoked only when KG coverage is insufficient. Our pipeline achieves an F1 score of 0.93 on the FEVER benchmark on the Supported/Refuted split without task-specific fine-tuning. To address Not enough information cases, we conduct a targeted reannotation study showing that our approach frequently uncovers valid evidence for claims originally labeled as Not Enough Information (NEI), as confirmed by both expert annotators and LLM reviewers. With this paper, we present a modular, opensource fact-checking pipeline with fallback strategies and generalization across datasets.

Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking. While many systems have recently been developed to handle this form of evidence, their evaluation remains limited by existing datasets, which often lack structured evidence, provide insufficient justifications for verdicts, or rely on synthetic claims. In this paper, we introduce TSVer, a new benchmark dataset for fact verification focusing on temporal and numerical reasoning with time-series evidence. TSVer contains 287 real-world claims sourced from 38 fact-checking organizations and a curated database of 400 time series covering diverse domains. Each claim is annotated with time frames across all pertinent time series, along with a verdict and justifications reflecting how the evidence is used to reach the verdict. Using an LLM-assisted multi-step annotation process, we improve the quality of our annotations and achieve an inter-annotator agreement of kappa=0.745 on verdicts. We also develop a baseline for verifying claims against time-series evidence and show that even the state-of-the-art reasoning models like Gemini-2.5-Pro are challenged by time series, achieving a 63.37 accuracy score on verdicts and an Ev2R score of 48.63 on verdict justifications.

Wikipedia is the largest open knowledge corpus, widely used worldwide and serving as a key resource for training large language models (LLMs) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Ensuring its accuracy is therefore critical. But how accurate is Wikipedia, and how can we improve it? We focus on inconsistencies, a specific type of factual inaccuracy, and introduce the task of corpus-level inconsistency detection. We present CLAIRE, an agentic system that combines LLM reasoning with retrieval to surface potentially inconsistent claims along with contextual evidence for human review. In a user study with experienced Wikipedia editors, 87.5% reported higher confidence when using CLAIRE, and participants identified 64.7% more inconsistencies in the same amount of time. Combining CLAIRE with human annotation, we contribute WIKICOLLIDE, the first benchmark of real Wikipedia inconsistencies. Using random sampling with CLAIRE-assisted analysis, we find that at least 3.3% of English Wikipedia facts contradict another fact, with inconsistencies propagating into 7.3% of FEVEROUS and 4.0% of AmbigQA examples. Benchmarking strong baselines on this dataset reveals substantial headroom: the best fully automated system achieves an AUROC of only 75.1%. Our results show that contradictions are a measurable component of Wikipedia and that LLM-based systems like CLAIRE can provide a practical tool to help editors improve knowledge consistency at scale.

Fact verification systems typically assess whether a claim is supported by retrieved evidence, assuming that truthfulness depends solely on what is stated. However, many real-world claims are half-truths, factually correct yet misleading due to the omission of critical context. Existing models struggle with such cases, as they are not designed to reason about omitted information. We introduce the task of half-truth detection, and propose PolitiFact-Hidden, a new benchmark with 15k political claims annotated with sentence-level evidence alignment and inferred claim intent. To address this challenge, we present TRACER, a modular re-assessment framework that identifies omission-based misinformation by aligning evidence, inferring implied intent, and estimating the causal impact of hidden content. TRACER can be integrated into existing fact-checking pipelines and consistently improves performance across multiple strong baselines. Notably, it boosts Half-True classification F1 by up to 16 points, highlighting the importance of modeling omissions for trustworthy fact verification. The benchmark and code are available via https://github.com/tangyixuan/TRACER.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to produce hallucinations - factually incorrect or fabricated information - which poses significant challenges for many Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications, such as dialogue systems. As a result, detecting hallucinations has become a critical area of research. Current approaches to hallucination detection in dialogue systems primarily focus on verifying the factual consistency of generated responses. However, these responses often contain a mix of accurate, inaccurate or unverifiable facts, making one factual label overly simplistic and coarse-grained. In this paper, we introduce a benchmark, FineDialFact, for fine-grained dialogue fact verification, which involves verifying atomic facts extracted from dialogue responses. To support this, we construct a dataset based on publicly available dialogue datasets and evaluate it using various baseline methods. Experimental results demonstrate that methods incorporating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning can enhance performance in dialogue fact verification. Despite this, the best F1-score achieved on the HybriDialogue, an open-domain dialogue dataset, is only 0.75, indicating that the benchmark remains a challenging task for future research. Our dataset and code will be public on GitHub.