Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

TSVer: A Benchmark for Fact Verification Against Time-Series Evidence

Marek Strong, Andreas Vlachos · Nov 2, 2025 · 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

Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking. While many systems have recently been developed to handle this form of evidence, their evaluation remains limited by existing datasets, which often lack structured evidence, provide insufficient justifications for verdicts, or rely on synthetic claims. In this paper, we introduce TSVer, a new benchmark dataset for fact verification focusing on temporal and numerical reasoning with time-series evidence. TSVer contains 304 real-world claims sourced from 41 fact-checking organizations and a curated database of 400 time series covering diverse domains. Each claim is annotated with time frames across all pertinent time series, along with a verdict and justifications reflecting how the evidence is used to reach the verdict. Using an LLM-assisted multi-step annotation process, we improve the quality of our annotations and achieve an inter-annotator agreement of kappa=0.77 on verdicts. We also develop a baseline for verifying claims against time-series evidence and show that even the state-of-the-art reasoning models like Gemini-2.5-Pro are challenged by time series, achieving a 63.57 accuracy score on verdicts and an Ev2R score of 47.36 on verdict justifications.

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)

Crowd/annotator signal

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

Automatic metrics, Long Horizon tasks

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Accuracy, Agreement / Kappa

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"We also develop a baseline for verifying claims against time-series evidence and show that even the state-of-the-art reasoning models like Gemini-2.5-Pro are challenged by time series, achieving a 63.57 accuracy score on verdicts and an Ev2R score of 47.36 on verdict justifications."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Using an LLM-assisted multi-step annotation process, we improve the quality of our annotations and achieve an inter-annotator agreement of kappa=0.77 on verdicts."

Human Feedback Details

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

  • Potential human-data signal: Crowd/annotator signal
  • 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: Automatic metrics, Long-horizon tasks
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy, Agreement / Kappa
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Reasoning over temporal and numerical data, such as time series, is a crucial aspect of fact-checking.
  • While many systems have recently been developed to handle this form of evidence, their evaluation remains limited by existing datasets, which often lack structured evidence, provide insufficient justifications for verdicts, or rely on synthetic claims.
  • In this paper, we introduce TSVer, a new benchmark dataset for fact verification focusing on temporal and numerical reasoning with time-series evidence.

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, Long-horizon tasks) 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.

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.