Recon, Answer, Verify: Agents in Search of Truth
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated fact checking with large language models (LLMs) offers a scalable alternative to manual verification. Evaluating fact checking is challenging as existing benchmark datasets often include post claim analysis and annotator cues, which are absent in real world scenarios where claims are fact checked immediately after being made. This limits the realism of current evaluations. We present Politi Fact Only (PFO), a 5 class benchmark dataset of 2,982 political claims from politifact.com, where all post claim analysis and annotator cues have been removed manually. This ensures that models are evaluated using only the information that would have been available prior to the claim's verification. Evaluating LLMs on PFO, we see an average performance drop of 22% in terms of macro f1 compared to PFO's unfiltered version. Based on the identified challenges of the existing LLM based fact checking system, we propose RAV (Recon Answer Verify), an agentic framework with three agents: question generator, answer generator, and label generator. Our pipeline iteratively generates and answers sub questions to verify different aspects of the claim before finally generating the label. RAV generalizes across domains and label granularities, and it outperforms state of the art approaches on well known baselines RAWFC (fact checking, 3 class) by 25.28%, and on HOVER (encyclopedia, 2 class) by 1.54% on 2 hop, 4.94% on 3 hop, and 1.78% on 4 hop, sub categories respectively. RAV shows the least performance drop compared to baselines of 16.3% in macro f1 when we compare PFO with its unfiltered version.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 11 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jul 2025.
Builds on
11 of 25 references.
References · 11
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
- 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,375
- 2017"Liar, Liar Pants on Fire": A New Benchmark Dataset for Fake News Detectioncited by 363
- 2020HoVer: A Dataset for Many-Hop Fact Extraction And Claim Verificationcited by 201
- 2019MultiFC: A Real-World Multi-Domain Dataset for Evidence-Based Fact Checking of Claimscited by 169
- 2023LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examinationcited by 156
- 2023Fact-Checking Complex Claims with Program-Guided Reasoningcited by 146
- 2023AVeriTeC: A Dataset for Real-world Claim Verification with Evidence from the Webcited by 144
- 2021X-FACT: A New Benchmark Dataset for Multilingual Fact Checkingcited by 91
- 2024FIRE: Fact-checking with Iterative Retrieval and Verificationcited by 39
- 2023Benchmarking the Generation of Fact Checking Explanationscited by 25
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Large Language Models Require Curated Context for Reliable Political Fact-Checking -- Even with Reasoning and Web Search
- 2023The Perils & Promises of Fact-checking with Large Language Models
- 2025Towards Automated Fact-Checking of Real-World Claims: Exploring Task Formulation and Assessment with LLMs
- 2025Fact-checking with Generative AI: A Systematic Cross-Topic Examination of LLMs Capacity to Detect Veracity of Political Information
- 2025Fact-checking AI-generated news reports: Can LLMs catch their own lies?
- 2024AFaCTA: Assisting the Annotation of Factual Claim Detection with Reliable LLM Annotators
- 2025How LLMs Fail to Support Fact-Checking
- 2025Debating Truth: Debate-driven Claim Verification with Multiple Large Language Model Agents