Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Context Shapes LLMs Retrieval-Augmented Fact-Checking Effectiveness

Pietro Bernardelle, Stefano Civelli, Kevin Roitero, Gianluca Demartini · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 23, 2026, 10:32 PM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Apr 13, 2026, 7:17 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.45

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) show strong reasoning abilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on extended contexts remains inconsistent. While prior research has emphasized mid-context degradation in question answering, this study examines the impact of context in LLM-based fact verification. Using three datasets (HOVER, FEVEROUS, and ClimateFEVER) and five open-source models accross different parameters sizes (7B, 32B and 70B parameters) and model families (Llama-3.1, Qwen2.5 and Qwen3), we evaluate both parametric factual knowledge and the impact of evidence placement across varying context lengths. We find that LLMs exhibit non-trivial parametric knowledge of factual claims and that their verification accuracy generally declines as context length increases. Similarly to what has been shown in previous works, in-context evidence placement plays a critical role with accuracy being consistently higher when relevant evidence appears near the beginning or end of the prompt and lower when placed mid-context. These results underscore the importance of prompt structure in retrieval-augmented fact-checking systems.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

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

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

5/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) show strong reasoning abilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on extended contexts remains inconsistent.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) show strong reasoning abilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on extended contexts remains inconsistent.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) show strong reasoning abilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on extended contexts remains inconsistent.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) show strong reasoning abilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on extended contexts remains inconsistent.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, Context length

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Using three datasets (HOVER, FEVEROUS, and ClimateFEVER) and five open-source models accross different parameters sizes (7B, 32B and 70B parameters) and model families (Llama-3.1, Qwen2.5 and Qwen3), we evaluate both parametric factual knowledge and the impact of evidence placement across varying context lengths.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) show strong reasoning abilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on extended contexts remains inconsistent.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

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

Reported Metrics

accuracycontext length

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Using three datasets (HOVER, FEVEROUS, and ClimateFEVER) and five open-source models accross different parameters sizes (7B, 32B and 70B parameters) and model families (Llama-3.1, Qwen2.5 and Qwen3), we evaluate both parametric factual… HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 13, 2026, 7:17 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Using three datasets (HOVER, FEVEROUS, and ClimateFEVER) and five open-source models accross different parameters sizes (7B, 32B and 70B parameters) and model families (Llama-3.1,…
  • We find that LLMs exhibit non-trivial parametric knowledge of factual claims and that their verification accuracy generally declines as context length increases.
  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy, context length).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Using three datasets (HOVER, FEVEROUS, and ClimateFEVER) and five open-source models accross different parameters sizes (7B, 32B and 70B parameters) and model families (Llama-3.1, Qwen2.5 and Qwen3), we evaluate both parametric factual…
  • We find that LLMs exhibit non-trivial parametric knowledge of factual claims and that their verification accuracy generally declines as context length increases.
  • Similarly to what has been shown in previous works, in-context evidence placement plays a critical role with accuracy being consistently higher when relevant evidence appears near the beginning or end of the prompt and lower when placed…

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: accuracy, context length

Category-Adjacent Papers (Broader Context)

These papers are nearby in arXiv category and useful for broader context, but not necessarily protocol-matched to this paper.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.