Global Consistency Repair for Natural-Language Claim Sets
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
NLP systems increasingly aggregate claims from retrieved passages, documents, and generated reasoning steps. Yet current factuality methods mostly verify claims individually or compare pairs of claims, leaving open the question of whether the entire aggregated claim set can be retained coherently. This misses a fundamental failure mode: claims may be locally plausible and pairwise compatible while still being jointly inconsistent. We formalize global consistency repair: given an inconsistent natural-language claim set, preserve the largest coherent subset while localizing the compact sources of inconsistency. We introduce QXR, an adaptive diagnosis-and-repair framework that treats an LLM as a noisy set-level consistency judge, localizes minimal conflicting subsets, and repairs the claim set by deleting a small hitting set of claims. Across LLM judges and benchmarks derived from VitaminC, FEVER, and conflicting-evidence RAG, QXR preserves substantially more valid claims than direct all-at-once judging while maintaining high precision. These results suggest that factuality in claim aggregation systems should be treated as a set-level repair problem, not only as local verification.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2026.
Builds on
19 of 36 references.
References · 19
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
- 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,375
- 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 584
- 2024LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methodscited by 465
- 2021A Survey on Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 378
- 2021Get Your Vitamin C! Robust Fact Verification with Contrastive Evidencecited by 225
- 2023Fact-Checking Complex Claims with Program-Guided Reasoningcited by 146
- 2018Automated Fact Checking: Task formulations, methods and future directionscited by 96
- 2023Explainable Claim Verification via Knowledge-Grounded Reasoning with Large Language Modelscited by 37
7 more
- 2024Decomposition Dilemmas: Does Claim Decomposition Boost or Burden Fact-Checking Performance?cited by 36
- 2024Logical Consistency of Large Language Models in Fact-checkingcited by 15
- 2024Halu-J: Critique-Based Hallucination Judgecited by 14
- 2025GraphCheck: Breaking Long-Term Text Barriers with Extracted Knowledge Graph-Powered Fact-Checkingcited by 12
- 2022Natural Logic-guided Autoregressive Multi-hop Document Retrieval for Fact Verificationcited by 11
- 2024MetaSumPerceiver: Multimodal Multi-Document Evidence Summarization for Fact-Checkingcited by 10
- 2025ConsistencyChecker: Tree-based Evaluation of LLM Generalization Capabilitiescited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.