Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

SEEK: Semantic Evidence Extraction via Adaptive ChunKing for Multilingual Fact-Checking

Gaurav Kumar, Babu Kumar, Ayush Garg, Aditya Kishore, Jasabanta Patro · May 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction. However, existing systems often rely on search snippets, sentence-level evidence, or locally segmented passages, which can miss decisive context and produce fragmented evidence. To overcome these limitations, we propose SEEK, a Semantic Evidence Extraction with an adaptive chunKing framework that constructs coherent evidence chunks from full fact-checking articles by identifying semantic topic transitions and preserving local verification context. The constructed chunks are encoded using a multilingual encoder and then multilingual LLMs are finetuned using LoRA adapter for veracity prediction. Experiments on X-FACT and RU22Fact show that SEEK improves macro-f1 by up to 10% over semantic chunking, 19% over sentence chunking, and 20% over search-snippet baselines. Evidence completeness and significance analyses further show that SEEK preserves richer verification context and enables more reliable multilingual fact-checking.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction."

Reported Metrics

partial

F1, F1 macro

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Multilingual

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1f1 macro

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Multilingual fact verification requires evidence that is both relevant and sufficiently complete for reliable factuality prediction.
  • However, existing systems often rely on search snippets, sentence-level evidence, or locally segmented passages, which can miss decisive context and produce fragmented evidence.
  • To overcome these limitations, we propose SEEK, a Semantic Evidence Extraction with an adaptive chunKing framework that constructs coherent evidence chunks from full fact-checking articles by identifying semantic topic transitions and preserving local verification context.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To overcome these limitations, we propose SEEK, a Semantic Evidence Extraction with an adaptive chunKing framework that constructs coherent evidence chunks from full fact-checking articles by identifying semantic topic transitions and…
  • Experiments on X-FACT and RU22Fact show that SEEK improves macro-f1 by up to 10% over semantic chunking, 19% over sentence chunking, and 20% over search-snippet baselines.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, f1 macro

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.