Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Distill and Align Decomposition for Enhanced Claim Verification

Jabez Magomere, Elena Kochkina, Samuel Mensah, Simerjot Kaur, Fernando Acero, Arturo Oncevay, Charese H. Smiley, Xiaomo Liu, Manuela Veloso · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics General Human Eval
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (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 25, 2026, 12:32 PM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Apr 13, 2026, 6:35 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.45

Abstract

Complex claim verification requires decomposing sentences into verifiable subclaims, yet existing methods struggle to align decomposition quality with verification performance. We propose a reinforcement learning (RL) approach that jointly optimizes decomposition quality and verifier alignment using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Our method integrates: (i) structured sequential reasoning; (ii) supervised finetuning on teacher-distilled exemplars; and (iii) a multi-objective reward balancing format compliance, verifier alignment, and decomposition quality. Across six evaluation settings, our trained 8B decomposer improves downstream verification performance to (71.75%) macro-F1, outperforming prompt-based approaches ((+1.99), (+6.24)) and existing RL methods ((+5.84)). Human evaluation confirms the high quality of the generated subclaims. Our framework enables smaller language models to achieve state-of-the-art claim verification by jointly optimising for verification accuracy and decomposition quality.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

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

  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

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 confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

37/100 • 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

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

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

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: Complex claim verification requires decomposing sentences into verifiable subclaims, yet existing methods struggle to align decomposition quality with verification performance.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Human Eval, Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Complex claim verification requires decomposing sentences into verifiable subclaims, yet existing methods struggle to align decomposition quality with verification performance.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Complex claim verification requires decomposing sentences into verifiable subclaims, yet existing methods struggle to align decomposition quality with verification performance.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Complex claim verification requires decomposing sentences into verifiable subclaims, yet existing methods struggle to align decomposition quality with verification performance.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, F1, F1 macro

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Our framework enables smaller language models to achieve state-of-the-art claim verification by jointly optimising for verification accuracy and decomposition quality.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Complex claim verification requires decomposing sentences into verifiable subclaims, yet existing methods struggle to align decomposition quality with verification performance.

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: Human Eval, Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

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

Reported Metrics

accuracyf1f1 macro

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We propose a reinforcement learning (RL) approach that jointly optimizes decomposition quality and verifier alignment using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). HFEPX signals include Human Eval, Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 13, 2026, 6:35 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We propose a reinforcement learning (RL) approach that jointly optimizes decomposition quality and verifier alignment using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO).
  • Across six evaluation settings, our trained 8B decomposer improves downstream verification performance to (71.75%) macro-F1, outperforming prompt-based approaches ((+1.99),…

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, f1, f1 macro).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We propose a reinforcement learning (RL) approach that jointly optimizes decomposition quality and verifier alignment using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO).
  • Across six evaluation settings, our trained 8B decomposer improves downstream verification performance to (71.75%) macro-F1, outperforming prompt-based approaches ((+1.99), (+6.24)) and existing RL methods ((+5.84)).
  • Human evaluation confirms the high quality of the generated subclaims.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Across six evaluation settings, our trained 8B decomposer improves downstream verification performance to (71.75%) macro-F1, outperforming prompt-based approaches ((+1.99), (+6.24)) and existing RL methods ((+5.84)).
  • Human evaluation confirms the high quality of the generated subclaims.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Human Eval, 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, f1, f1 macro

Related Papers

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

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

Post a Job Get a Quote