# Navigating the Noisy Crowd: Finding Key Information for Claim Verification

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12425 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12425/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 20 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Longformer: The Long-Document Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.05150/) (2020)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09543/) (2021)
- [Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.14599/) (2019)
- [Complexity-Based Prompting for Multi-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.00720/) (2022)
- [A Survey on Automated Fact-Checking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.11896/) (2021)
- [HoVer: A Dataset for Many-Hop Fact Extraction And Claim Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.03088/) (2020)
- [Extractive Summarization as Text Matching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.08795/) (2020)
- [Fact-Checking Complex Claims with Program-Guided Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.12744/) (2023)
- [Fine-grained Fact Verification with Kernel Graph Attention Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.09796/) (2019)
- [BERT for Evidence Retrieval and Claim Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.02655/) (2019)
- [Do Large Language Models Know about Facts?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05177/) (2023)
- [EX-FEVER: A Dataset for Multi-hop Explainable Fact Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.09754/) (2023)
- [QACHECK: A Demonstration System for Question-Guided Multi-Hop Fact-Checking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07609/) (2023)
- [FACTIFY-5WQA: 5W Aspect-based Fact Verification through Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04329/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Breaking Event Rumor Detection via Stance-Separated Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.04859/) (2024)
- [STRIVE: Structured Reasoning for Self-Improvement in Claim Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11959/) (2025)
- [The Alignment Bottleneck in Decomposition-Based Claim Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.10380/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Claim verification is a task that involves assessing the truthfulness of a given claim based on multiple evidence pieces. Using large language models (LLMs) for claim verification is a promising way. However, simply feeding all the evidence pieces to an LLM and asking if the claim is factual does not yield good results. The challenge lies in the noisy nature of both the evidence and the claim: evidence passages typically contain irrelevant information, with the key facts hidden within the context, while claims often convey multiple aspects simultaneously. To navigate this "noisy crowd" of information, we propose EACon (Evidence Abstraction and Claim Deconstruction), a framework designed to find key information within evidence and verify each aspect of a claim separately. EACon first finds keywords from the claim and employs fuzzy matching to select relevant keywords for each raw evidence piece. These keywords serve as a guide to extract and summarize critical information into abstracted evidence. Subsequently, EACon deconstructs the original claim into subclaims, which are then verified against both abstracted and raw evidence individually. We evaluate EACon using two open-source LLMs on two challenging datasets. Results demonstrate that EACon consistently and substantially improve LLMs' performance in claim verification.