Abstract
Claim verification is the task of deciding whether a source text supports a claim, contradicts it, or lacks sufficient evidence. Natural Language Inference (NLI) models can judge whether a single sentence supports or contradicts a claim, but they struggle when the evidence is spread across several sentences. Conversely, Large Language Models (LLMs) can reason across sentences, but may draw conclusions the text does not support. In this experimental study, we test whether a conservative fusion rule, labeling a claim Support or Contradict only when both models agree and defaulting to Not Enough Evidence otherwise, combines their strengths. We construct a benchmark of 2,035 claims from SciFact and CliniFact (858 Support, 152 Contradict, 1,025 Not Enough Evidence). We retrieve the top five most relevant sentences per claim using a hybrid of semantic and lexical (BM25) retrieval, which slightly outperforms either method alone. These retrieved sentences are then provided to every verification model. We then compare a DeBERTa-v3-base-mnli-fever-anli NLI baseline against Llama 3.1 8B, Qwen3 8B, and Mistral 7B. Qwen3 achieves the highest Macro-F1 (0.7937), followed by Llama 3.1 (0.7204) and Mistral (0.6388), while the NLI baseline reaches only 0.3157. Contrary to our hypothesis, fusion degrades performance, dropping Macro-F1 to 0.7392, 0.6730, and 0.5991, respectively. To understand this decline, we analyze agreements, disagreements, and common error patterns between the NLI and LLM verifiers. Our error analysis shows that NLI and LLM disagreements often result in correct LLM predictions being overturned.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.03093
