Automated Fact Verification & Evidence Reranking
Distinguishing semantically similar claims that differ in factual truth across languages and inference regimes.
Scientific Motivation
In real-world misinformation, false posts and verified claims frequently share topical vocabulary while diverging on a single critical predicate, date, or entity. Standard dense embeddings compress sentences into a single vector that blurs these fine-grained factual distinctions—especially across languages or when training updates are infeasible.

Figure 1: Overview of the two-stage framework: 5× E5-Large + BiLSTM-Attention Ensemble (Stage 1) and Dense Hard-Negative BGE-M3 Reranker (Stage 2).
Core Research Questions
- How should negative examples be mined so that a Cross-Encoder reranker learns factual discrimination rather than surface lexical overlap?
- Can we improve multi-class fact verification accuracy without updating model parameters by exploiting provenance-aware prediction history and constrained expert routing?
Methods & Architectures
- · BiLSTM-Attention Token Pooling over Multilingual E5
- · Retriever-Aligned Dense Hard Negative Mining
- · Cross-Encoder Reranking (BGE-M3 / PhoRanker)
- · Constrained Expert Routing & Asymmetric NEI Deferral (GraphCURE)
- · Training-Free Provenance Caching & Error-Conditioned Memory (ERRORFlow)
Benchmarks & Datasets
- · SemEval-2025 Task 7 (10 Languages, 4,959 Test Queries)
- · AVeriTeC / Evidence-Grounded Fact Verification Benchmarks
Associated Publications (2)
Enhancing Multilingual Fact-Checking Retrieval with Ensemble Bi-Encoders and Architecture-Aware Hard Negative Reranking
Cross-Lingual S@10: 0.8833
From Benchmarking to Reasoning: A Dual-Aspect, Large-Scale Evaluation of LLMs on Vietnamese Legal Text
The 'Accuracy Illusion' (Claude 3 Opus): 4.71 / 5 Accuracy · 196 Total Errors

