Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

HoVer: A Dataset for Many-Hop Fact Extraction And Claim Verification

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 2011.03088 v2 pith:PXU6GYQL submitted 2020-11-05 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords datasethovermany-hopverificationclaimfactreasoningarticles
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce HoVer (HOppy VERification), a dataset for many-hop evidence extraction and fact verification. It challenges models to extract facts from several Wikipedia articles that are relevant to a claim and classify whether the claim is Supported or Not-Supported by the facts. In HoVer, the claims require evidence to be extracted from as many as four English Wikipedia articles and embody reasoning graphs of diverse shapes. Moreover, most of the 3/4-hop claims are written in multiple sentences, which adds to the complexity of understanding long-range dependency relations such as coreference. We show that the performance of an existing state-of-the-art semantic-matching model degrades significantly on our dataset as the number of reasoning hops increases, hence demonstrating the necessity of many-hop reasoning to achieve strong results. We hope that the introduction of this challenging dataset and the accompanying evaluation task will encourage research in many-hop fact retrieval and information verification. We make the HoVer dataset publicly available at https://hover-nlp.github.io

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. LocalSearchBench: Benchmarking Agentic Search in Real-World Local Life Services

    cs.AI 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LocalSearchBench—1.3M merchant records and 900 multi-hop local-life QA tasks across 9 Chinese cities—shows the best reasoning agent reaches only 35.6% correctness.

  2. Single-agent or Multi-agent Systems? Why Not Both?

    cs.MA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On 15 agentic benchmarks, the accuracy advantage of multi-agent LLM systems over single-agent systems mostly disappears with stronger base models, and a hybrid single/multi-agent cascade improves accuracy and cuts cost.

  3. Safety Degradation in AI Agents

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding retrieval to aligned LLMs degrades safety: refusal rates fall, bias and harmfulness rise, and prompt-based mitigation only partially restores alignment.

Pith tools