ContextClaim: A Context-Driven Paradigm for Verifiable Claim Detection

Yufeng Li, Rrubaa Panchendrarajan, Arkaitz Zubiaga · Mar 31, 2026 · Citations: 0

Human Eval

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (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

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Verifiable claim detection asks whether a claim expresses a factual statement that can, in principle, be assessed against external evidence. As an early filtering stage in automated fact-checking, it plays an important role in reducing the burden on downstream verification components. However, existing approaches to claim detection, whether based on check-worthiness or verifiability, rely solely on the claim text itself. This is a notable limitation for verifiable claim detection in particular, where determining whether a claim is checkable may benefit from knowing what entities and events it refers to and whether relevant information exists to support verification. Inspired by the established role of evidence retrieval in later-stage claim verification, we propose Context-Driven Claim Detection (ContextClaim), a paradigm that advances retrieval to the detection stage. ContextClaim extracts entity mentions from the input claim, retrieves relevant information from Wikipedia as a structured knowledge source, and employs large language models to produce concise contextual summaries for downstream classification. We evaluate ContextClaim on two datasets covering different topics and text genres, the CheckThat! 2022 COVID-19 Twitter dataset and the PoliClaim political debate dataset, across encoder-only and decoder-only models under fine-tuning, zero-shot, and few-shot settings. Results show that context augmentation can improve verifiable claim detection, although its effectiveness varies across domains, model architectures, and learning settings. Through component analysis, human evaluation, and error analysis, we further examine when and why the retrieved context contributes to more reliable verifiability judgments.

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.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

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 30%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

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.