Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Task-Oriented Automatic Fact-Checking with Frame-Semantics

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read For fact-checking claims against large structured databases, querying with frame-semantic elements retrieves relevant evidence more often than querying with the full claim, improving recall by 14% on voting claims and 11% on OECD…

desk verdict The new dataset is the real contribution; the headline retrieval gain is plausible but confounded with query compression, and the paper deserves a serious referee with targeted fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13288 v3 pith:MWAPNZUF submitted 2025-01-23 cs.CL

Jacob Devasier , Rishabh Mediratta , Akshith Putta , Chengkai Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords automaticfact-checkingframesemanticsNetevidenceretrievalstructureddataPolitiFactsemanticrolesverification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that frame semantics, a linguistic framework that represents a sentence as a structured scene with named roles, can organize automatic fact-checking against very large structured databases. It introduces a pilot dataset of real-world PolitiFact claims tied to U.S. congressional voting records and OECD country statistics, and shows that extracting a claim's frame elements and using those roles as retrieval queries finds relevant evidence more often than searching with the entire claim. The reported gains are 14% recall improvement on voting-related claims and 11% on OECD-related claims. The deeper point is that the frame representation gives the pipeline a handle on which part of a claim maps to which table, and it makes the verification process more explainable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semantic frame and its frame elements. A frame is a structured scene, for example Vote (an Agent makes a voting decision on an Issue) or Occupy_rank (an Item occupies a Rank along a Dimension), and frame elements are the named slots in that scene. The paper uses these slots as the query representation: for each studied frame, a hand-selected subset of elements is extracted from the claim by a fine-tuned parser and fed to a semantic similarity model that matches against candidate bills or OECD tables. This decomposition is what lets the system map a claim to the right table among databases with millions of rows, and it also supplies the explanation trail for why a claim was checked against particular evidence.

What would settle it

Run the same bill and table retrieval using queries of matched length built from the claim's subject noun phrase or extracted noun phrases; if recall@K matches the frame-element result, frame semantics is not the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that task-oriented fact-checking can be built around semantic frames: when a claim evokes a frame, the frame's elements name the slots that matter for verification. Using the Vote frame's Agent and Issue elements to retrieve congressional bills, and using the Dimension, Item, Rank, and Comparison_criterion elements of OECD frames to retrieve statistical tables, the system improves recall@K over full-claim queries from 0.143 to 0.165 on voting bills (K=10) and from 0.653 to 0.726 on OECD tables (K=5), which the paper reports as 14% and 11% gains. The paper also reports that its fine-tuned frame-semantic parser identifies frames and frame elements far more accurately than prompting a large language model to do the same, and that end-to-end verification accuracy improves substantially when retrieval succeeds.

Load-bearing premise

The recall improvement is attributed to frame semantics, but the experiments only compare frame-element queries against full-claim queries, without controlling for query length or lexical focus, so a simpler extraction baseline might yield the same gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fact-checking systems can use frame elements as retrieval queries against databases too large for LLM context windows, since the element, not the whole claim, is what gets matched to tables.
  • Different embedding models will be needed for different claim types; the paper finds one model best for bill matching and a different model best for OECD table matching, arguing against a single global retrieval model.
  • A small set of frames covers a large share of real-world fact-checks: the survey of 21,024 PolitiFact articles finds a heavy skew toward a few frames, including Vote, one of the frames studied here.
  • Retrieval quality is a direct lever on final accuracy: excluding cases where retrieval failed improves verification accuracy by 13.1 percentage points on voting claims and 21.5 points on OECD claims.
  • Automated frame parsing is accurate enough to drive the pipeline: the fine-tuned parser reaches 0.990 frame accuracy and 0.889 frame-element accuracy on Vote claims, compared with 0.974 and 0.618 for a prompted LLM.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the recall gain is genuinely due to semantic roles rather than query brevity, then automatically selecting the most informative frame elements per claim should beat the hand-picked table in the paper's Table 6; that comparison would separate frame semantics from manual curation.
  • The same role-based decomposition should transfer to other high-volume structured sources, such as scientific or legal records, where claim roles map to schema columns; the paper only demonstrates voting and OECD tables.
  • A direct end-to-end test, full-claim versus frame-element retrieval feeding the same verifier, would show whether the reported retrieval gains translate into more accurate verdicts; the paper reports retrieval and verification results separately.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a task-oriented automatic fact-checking paradigm that uses FrameNet-style semantic frames to guide evidence retrieval from large structured databases. It introduces a pilot dataset of 79 voting-related and 68 OECD-related PolitiFact claims, each manually linked to congressional records or OECD tables. Two case studies demonstrate that queries built from manually selected frame elements (e.g., the Issue element for Vote claims) achieve higher recall@K than full-claim queries (0.165 vs. 0.143 for Vote; 0.726 vs. 0.653 for OECD). The paper also reports a survey of frames in PolitiFact claims, claiming strong alignment with the frames targeted in the case studies, and releases code, data, and a demo.

Significance. If the retrieval gain is real and attributable to frame semantics, this would be a useful step toward scalable fact-checking on high-volume structured data, and the released dataset and code are valuable resources. The paper's strengths include the construction of a novel pilot dataset, the use of real primary-source tables, and the explicit focus on interpretability through frame elements. However, the central causal claim is currently undersupported: the comparison in Table 4 is confounded with query compression, and the end-to-end evaluation in Table 5 relies on an oracle-style exclusion of retrieval failures. The contribution is therefore promising but needs additional controls and more rigorous evaluation before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4, Table 4, and Abstract] The headline claim that frame element-driven retrieval improves recall over full-claim baselines is confounded with query compression. For voting claims the query is the manually selected Issue FE (e.g., "gun control" or a bill title), while for OECD claims each frame contributes a single FE such as Dimension; these queries are much shorter and more lexically focused than the full claims (average 18 words). Without a control condition that uses an automatically extracted key phrase (e.g., the longest noun phrase, a keyword extractor, or the claim's subject), the observed differences (0.165 vs. 0.143 and 0.726 vs. 0.653) cannot be attributed to frame-semantic structure rather than to query length or lexical focus. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 6 explicitly attribute the improvement to frame semantics.
  2. [Section 5.4, Tables 3 and 4] The retrieval model is selected on the same evaluation set that produces the headline numbers. DistilBERT-TAS-B is chosen for Vote and RoBERTa-v2 for OECD because of their ranks in Table 3, and the same 79 and 68 claims are then used for the Table 4 comparison. This selection-on-test procedure inflates the reported recall and lacks a proper development/test split. In addition, the sample sizes are small and no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported; the 0.022 absolute recall difference for Vote could plausibly be sampling noise. A bootstrap or permutation test should be included.
  3. [Section 5.5, Table 5] The "Ours w/o Irrelevant" rows exclude claims where the system failed to retrieve relevant evidence, and the paper treats these as the system's fact-verification performance. This is an oracle analysis because the system does not know a priori which claims have retrievable evidence. Excluding retrieval failures inflates accuracy from 0.076 to 0.207 (Vote) and from 0.214 to 0.429 (OECD). The end-to-end accuracy on all claims should be reported, possibly with an explicit "evidence not found" abstention option, and the w/o Irrelevant numbers should be presented as an upper bound rather than as the system's expected performance. The conclusions in Section 6 do not mention this caveat.
  4. [Section 5.3, Table 2] The survey of frames uses a zero-shot GPT-4o-mini model, which the paper itself reports over-predicts frames (2.1 predictions per claim vs. 1.1 in gold data). The claim that the frames used in the case studies align with high-impact frames is based on this noisy distribution; without a human-annotated validation sample or a per-frame error analysis, the ranking in Table 2 is not a reliable basis for the coverage claim. The paper should calibrate the survey against gold annotations or explicitly report the effect of over-prediction on the frame distribution.
  5. [Section 4.1/4.2 and Table 6] The mapping from frame elements to database tables is hand-defined by the authors and presented as the interface for retrieval. There is no evaluation of this mapping's correctness or coverage. Because the retrieval gain depends on the particular FE chosen for each frame, the mapping is a free parameter; an ablation with alternative FEs or an automatic mapping would strengthen the claim. As written, the results demonstrate the potential of the manually designed mapping, not of frame semantics per se.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.4] The reported "14% and 11%" improvements are ambiguous: Table 4 shows R@K values, so the relative improvements are 15.4% (0.165/0.143) and 11.2% (0.726/0.653), while the absolute differences are 2.2 and 7.3 percentage points. Please state explicitly whether the percentages are relative or absolute.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 1] The "Random" baseline for frame accuracy on OECD is reported as 0.602, which seems high for a uniform random choice over frames; please explain how the random baseline is constructed.
  3. [Section 4.2] The number of representative sample values per column (10) and the threshold of 100 distinct values are ad hoc; please state whether the downstream results are sensitive to these choices.
  4. [Section 5.5] The labels "w/ Irrelevant" and "w/o Irrelevant" are confusing because the latter excludes cases where the system failed to retrieve evidence, not cases where relevant evidence was absent. Consider renaming to "All claims" and "Claims with retrieved evidence".
  5. [Section 5.4, Table 3] The model selection procedure should be described more explicitly: state that the models in Table 3 were ranked on the same evaluation claims used in Table 4, and discuss the potential optimism this introduces.
  6. [Limitations] The Limitations section does not acknowledge the query compression confound in Table 4 or the oracle-style exclusion in Table 5; both should be noted as limitations of the current evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the retrieval gain is an empirical comparison against full-claim baselines; self-citations supply frames and parser components but do not pre-commit the recall result.

full rationale

The central empirical claim — frame-element retrieval recall of 0.165 vs 0.143 for Vote and 0.726 vs 0.653 for OECD in Table 4 — is a direct comparison of two query representations against independently constructed PolitiFact evaluation sets whose gold bills/tables were identified from fact-check sources (Appendix A). The frame-element queries are specified a priori in Table 6 from frame-semantic definitions and are not fitted to the retrieval targets or to the recall numbers. The improvement therefore does not reduce to a fitted parameter, a renamed input, or a self-citation: the frames and parser are inputs, while the retrieval gain is an empirical outcome that would stand or fall on the Table 4 comparison regardless of who authored the frame inventory. Self-citations to Arslan et al. (2020) and Devasier et al. (2024) supply the fact-checking frames and frame-identification model, but they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as proof of the retrieval claim. The PolitiFact survey (Section 5.3) uses a zero-shot GPT-4o-mini prompted with the same frame definitions to argue that the studied frames are frequent; the paper itself notes the model may over-predict, so this is a measurement-validity concern, not a derivation that presupposes its conclusion. A genuine confound exists: FE queries are shorter and manually focused, so a key-phrase baseline would be needed to isolate frame semantics causally, but confounding is a correctness/validity issue rather than circularity. The Limitations section acknowledges data-coverage and language limitations but not this confound. No equation or construction makes Table 4's result equal to an input by definition, so circularity is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pilot relies on the authors' own frame inventory, a manual frame-element-to-table mapping, and PolitiFact labels; these are borrowed from prior group work or hand-constructed, so they are axioms rather than independently established facts.

free parameters (3)
  • retrieval depth K = K=10 for Vote, K=5 for OECD
    Recall@K is reported at these hand-chosen depths; changing K changes the headline numbers, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • number of candidate tables retrieved (OECD) = 5
    The system always retrieves the five most similar tables; this limit directly affects recall and was chosen by the authors.
  • representative sample size for column encoding = 10
    Columns with many distinct values are represented by ten sampled values when encoding tables for GPT-4o; this is a hand-selected parameter that influences query generation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 11 fact-checking frames from Arslan et al. (2020) plus standard FrameNet frames are sufficient to represent the semantic content of factual claims.
    The entire system is built on these frames; claims evoking other frames are labeled 'None' and fall outside the evaluated scope (Table 6, Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption PolitiFact's Truth-o-Meter verdicts are a correct and unbiased gold standard.
    Evaluation labels come from PolitiFact fact-checks without independent adjudication (Section 5.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The hand-defined mapping from frame elements to database tables (Table 6) is the right interface for evidence retrieval.
    The mapping is provided by the authors and is not derived from any external standard; it directly determines the queries tested and is not compared to alternative mappings.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o's verdicts, prompted with the provided instructions, are a valid measure of fact-verification quality.
    No human agreement study or calibration is reported for the LLM verifier (Section 5.5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Task-Oriented Automatic Fact-Checking with Frame-Semantics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWAPNZUF

@misc{pith2026250113288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Task-Oriented Automatic Fact-Checking with Frame-Semantics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWAPNZUF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13288}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a novel paradigm for automatic fact-checking that leverages frame semantics to enhance the structured understanding of claims and guide the process of fact-checking them. To support this, we introduce a pilot dataset of real-world claims extracted from PolitiFact, specifically annotated for large-scale structured data. This dataset underpins two case studies: the first investigates voting-related claims using the Vote semantic frame, while the second explores various semantic frames based on data sources from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of frame semantics in improving evidence retrieval and explainability for fact-checking. Finally, we conducted a survey of frames evoked in fact-checked claims, identifying high-impact frames to guide future work in this direction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of our proposed paradigm. First, the frame Occupy Rank and frame elements (FEs) are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mubashara Akhtar, Oana Cocarascu, and Elena Simperl. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.findings-naacl.1 P ub H ealth T ab: A public health table-based dataset for evidence-based fact checking . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 1--16, Seattle, United States

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-naacl.1 2022

  2. [2]

    Rami Aly, Zhijiang Guo, Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, Oana Cocarascu, and Arpit Mittal. 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=h-flVCIlstW FEVEROUS : Fact extraction and VERification over unstructured and structured information . In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Da...

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Fatma Arslan, Josue Caraballo, Damian Jimenez, and Chengkai Li. 2020. Modeling factual claims with semantic frames. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 2511--2520, Marseille, France

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Baker, Charles J

    Collin F. Baker, Charles J. Fillmore, and John B. Lowe. 1998. https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980860 The B erkeley F rame N et project . In 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 1, pages 86--90, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Mostafa Bouziane, Hugo Perrin, Amine Sadeq, Thanh Nguyen, Aur \'e lien Cluzeau, and Julien Mardas. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.fever-1.4 F a BULOUS : Fact-checking based on understanding of language over unstructured and structured information . In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER), pages 31--39, Dom...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.fever-1.4 2021

  6. [6]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian...

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Wenhu Chen, Hongmin Wang, Jianshu Chen, Yunkai Zhang, Hong Wang, Shiyang Li, Xiyou Zhou, and William Yang Wang. 2020. https://openreview.net/forum?id=rkeJRhNYDH Tabfact: A large-scale dataset for table-based fact verification . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  8. [8]

    Rudnicky

    Yun-Nung (Vivian) Chen, William Yang Wang, and Alexander I. Rudnicky. 2014. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5827307 Leveraging frame semantics and distributional semantics for unsupervised semantic slot induction in spoken dialogue systems . 2014 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT), pages 584--589

    work page 2014

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Smith, and Tao Yu

    Zhoujun Cheng, Tianbao Xie, Peng Shi, Chengzu Li, Rahul Nadkarni, Yushi Hu, Caiming Xiong, Dragomir Radev, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A. Smith, and Tao Yu. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=lH1PV42cbF Binding language models in symbolic languages . In The Eleve...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Tsun-Hin Cheung and Kin-Man Lam. 2023 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00240 FactLLaMA: Optimizing Instruction-Following Language Models with External Knowledge for Automated Fact-Checking . Preprint, arXiv:2309.00240

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Tsunhin Cheung and Kin Man Lam. 2023 b . https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:261494288 FactLLaMA: Optimizing Instruction-Following Language Models with External Knowledge for Automated Fact-Checking . 2023 Asia Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual ...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Dipanjan Das, Desai Chen, Andr \'e F. T. Martins, Nathan Schneider, and Noah A. Smith. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00163 Frame-semantic parsing . Computational Linguistics, 40(1):9--56

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Jacob Devasier, Yogesh Gurjar, and Chengkai Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.374 Robust frame-semantic models with lexical unit trees and negative samples . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1:...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Dawei Gao, Haibin Wang, Yaliang Li, Xiuyu Sun, Yichen Qian, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. 2024. https://doi.org/10.14778/3641204.3641221 Text-to-sql empowered by large language models: A benchmark evaluation . Proc. VLDB Endow., 17(5):1132–1145

    2024

  7. [15]

    Zihui Gu, Ju Fan, Nan Tang, Preslav Nakov, Xiaoman Zhao, and Xiaoyong Du. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.331 PASTA : Table-operations aware fact verification via sentence-table cloze pre-training . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods i...

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Sonal Gupta, Rushin Shah, Mrinal Mohit, Anuj Kumar, and Mike Lewis. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1300 Semantic parsing for task oriented dialog using hierarchical representations . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processi...

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Vivek Gupta, Maitrey Mehta, Pegah Nokhiz, and Vivek Srikumar. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.210 INFOTABS : Inference on tables as semi-structured data . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2309--2324

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Sebastian Hofst\" a tter, Sheng-Chieh Lin, Jheng-Hong Yang, Jimmy Lin, and Allan Hanbury. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3404835.3462891 Efficiently teaching an effective dense retriever with balanced topic aware sampling . In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Con...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Zhengbao Jiang, Yi Mao, Pengcheng He, Graham Neubig, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.68 O mni T ab: Pretraining with natural and synthetic data for few-shot table-based question answering . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North A...

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Mohammed Abdul Khaliq, Paul Yu-Chun Chang, Mingyang Ma, Bernhard Pflugfelder, and Filip Mileti \'c . 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.fever-1.29 RAGAR , your falsehood radar: RAG -augmented reasoning for political fact-checking using multimodal large language models . In...

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Fangyu Lei, Jixuan Chen, Yuxiao Ye, Ruisheng Cao, Dongchan Shin, Hongjin Su, Zhaoqing Suo, Hongcheng Gao, Wenjing Hu, Pengcheng Yin, Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, Ruoxi Sun, Qian Liu, Sida Wang, and Tao Yu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.07763 Spider 2.0: Evaluating language ...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692 Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach . Preprint, arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Harish Tayyar Madabushi. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16167 Fs-rag: A frame semantics based approach for improved factual accuracy in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2406.16167

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Md Nahid and Davood Rafiei. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.320 T ab SQL ify: Enhancing reasoning capabilities of LLM s through table decomposition . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Ling...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Danilo Neves Ribeiro, Jack Goetz, Omid Abdar, Mike Ross, Annie Dong, Kenneth Forbus, and Ahmed Mohamed. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.pandl-1.6 Towards zero-shot frame semantic parsing with task agnostic ontologies and simple labels . In Proceedings of the 2nd Worksho...

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Baolin Peng, Michel Galley, Pengcheng He, Hao Cheng, Yujia Xie, Yu Hu, Qiuyuan Huang, Lars Liden, Zhou Yu, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.12813 Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automate...

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Shaden Shaar, Nikolay Babulkov, Giovanni Da San Martino, and Preslav Nakov. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.332 That is a known lie: Detecting previously fact-checked claims . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Ronit Singal, Pransh Patwa, Parth Patwa, Aman Chadha, and Amitava Das. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.fever-1.10 Evidence-backed fact checking using RAG and few-shot in-context learning with LLM s . In Proceedings of the Seventh Fact Extraction and VERification Worksho...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Xuefeng Su, Ru Li, Xiaoli li, and Zhichao Yan. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3724/2096-7004.di.2024.0053 A unified framework for frame-semantic parsing based on marker attention . Data Intelligence

    2024

  22. [30]

    Nancy X. R. Wang, Diwakar Mahajan, Marina Danilevsky, and Sara Rosenthal. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.semeval-1.39 S em E val-2021 task 9: Fact verification and evidence finding for tabular data in scientific documents ( SEM - TAB - FACTS ) . In Proceedings of the 1...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Georgiev, Jiahui Geng, Iryna Gurevych, and Preslav Nakov

    Yuxia Wang, Minghan Wang, Hasan Iqbal, Georgi N. Georgiev, Jiahui Geng, Iryna Gurevych, and Preslav Nakov. 2025. https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.755/ O pen F act C heck: Building, benchmarking customized fact-checking systems and evaluating the factuality of claims a...

    2025

  24. [32]

    Wikipedia contributors . 2024 a . List of nicknames of presidents of the united states --- Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nicknames_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=1226749824. [Online; accessed 2025-2-15]

    2024

  25. [33]

    Wikipedia contributors . 2024 b . List of nicknames used by donald trump about other people --- Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump_about_other_people&oldid=1226728769. [Online; accessed 2025-2-15]

    2024

  26. [34]

    Yunhu Ye, Binyuan Hui, Min Yang, Binhua Li, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591708 Large language models are versatile decomposers: Decomposing evidence and questions for table-based reasoning . In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIG...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Dun Zhang, Jiacheng Li, Ziyang Zeng, and Fulong Wang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19048 Jasper and stella: distillation of sota embedding models . Preprint, arXiv:2412.19048

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Yilun Zhao, Linyong Nan, Zhenting Qi, Rui Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.615 R eas TAP : Injecting table reasoning skills during pre-training via synthetic reasoning examples . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Met...

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Ce Zheng, Yiming Wang, and Baobao Chang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v37i11.26642 Query your model with definitions in framenet: an effective method for frame semantic role labeling . In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Th...

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  31. [39]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.