Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Get Your Vitamin C! Robust Fact Verification with Contrastive Evidence

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 2103.08541 v1 pith:AJ4PHHJP submitted 2021-03-15 cs.CL cs.IRcs.LG

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

Typical fact verification models use retrieved written evidence to verify claims. Evidence sources, however, often change over time as more information is gathered and revised. In order to adapt, models must be sensitive to subtle differences in supporting evidence. We present VitaminC, a benchmark infused with challenging cases that require fact verification models to discern and adjust to slight factual changes. We collect over 100,000 Wikipedia revisions that modify an underlying fact, and leverage these revisions, together with additional synthetically constructed ones, to create a total of over 400,000 claim-evidence pairs. Unlike previous resources, the examples in VitaminC are contrastive, i.e., they contain evidence pairs that are nearly identical in language and content, with the exception that one supports a given claim while the other does not. We show that training using this design increases robustness -- improving accuracy by 10% on adversarial fact verification and 6% on adversarial natural language inference (NLI). Moreover, the structure of VitaminC leads us to define additional tasks for fact-checking resources: tagging relevant words in the evidence for verifying the claim, identifying factual revisions, and providing automatic edits via factually consistent text generation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. FlashCheck: Exploration of Efficient Evidence Retrieval for Fast Fact-Checking

    cs.IR 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Indexing only factual sentences from Wikipedia and using JPQ index compression accelerates fact-checking retrieval by 10 to 30 times with only a few F1 points lost.

  2. HF-RAG: Hierarchical Fusion-based RAG with Multiple Sources and Rankers

    cs.IR 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    By first fusing multiple retrievers within labeled and unlabeled sources with RRF, then merging z-score normalized lists, HF-RAG improves fact-verification F1 in-domain and out-of-domain.

Pith tools