Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Leveraging LLM Parametric Knowledge for Fact Checking without Retrieval

Artem Vazhentsev, Maria Marina, Daniil Moskovskiy, Sergey Pletenev, Mikhail Seleznyov, Mikhail Salnikov, Elena Tutubalina, Vasily Konovalov, Irina Nikishina, Alexander Panchenko, Viktor Moskvoretskii · Mar 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs). To enhance trust, natural language claims from diverse sources, including human-written text, web content, and model outputs, are commonly checked for factuality by retrieving external knowledge and using an LLM to verify the faithfulness of claims to the retrieved evidence. As a result, such methods are constrained by retrieval errors and external data availability, while leaving the models intrinsic fact-verification capabilities largely unused. We propose the task of fact-checking without retrieval, focusing on the verification of arbitrary natural language claims, independent of their source. To study this setting, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework focused on generalization, testing robustness to (i) long-tail knowledge, (ii) variation in claim sources, (iii) multilinguality, and (iv) long-form generation. Across 9 datasets, 18 methods and 3 models, our experiments indicate that logit-based approaches often underperform compared to those that leverage internal model representations. Building on this finding, we introduce INTRA, a method that exploits interactions between internal representations and achieves state-of-the-art performance with strong generalization. More broadly, our work establishes fact-checking without retrieval as a promising research direction that can complement retrieval-based frameworks, improve scalability, and enable the use of such systems as reward signals during training or as components integrated into the generation process.

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 page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

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

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs).

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

Key Takeaways

  • Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs).
  • To enhance trust, natural language claims from diverse sources, including human-written text, web content, and model outputs, are commonly checked for factuality by retrieving external knowledge and using an LLM to verify the faithfulness of claims to the retrieved evidence.
  • As a result, such methods are constrained by retrieval errors and external data availability, while leaving the models intrinsic fact-verification capabilities largely unused.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • 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

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.