PreprintCited by 4Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeTopic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs

Open access
Tang, Ziyi, Wang, Ruilin, Chen, Weixing, Zheng, Yongsen, Chen, Zechuan, Liu, Yang, Wang, Keze, Chen, Tianshui, Lin, Liang·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Despite the progress of foundation models, knowledge-based reasoning remains a persistent challenge due to their limited capacity for knowledge recall and inference. Existing methods primarily focus on encouraging these models to plan and solve problems or extensively sample reasoning chains independently. However, these methods often overlook conceptual errors and inferential fallacies, inevitably leading to a series of notorious issues such as misleading conclusions, cognitive biases, and reduced decision quality. While explicit modeling of causality is argued to hold promise in addressing these issues, contemporary research efforts have thus far fallen short in achieving causality-based foundation models. Drawing inspiration from the orchestration of diverse specialized agents collaborating to tackle intricate tasks, we propose a framework named Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought (CaCo-CoT) that harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models, involving a set of reasoners and evaluators. These agents collaboratively work within a reasoning-and-consensus paradigm to improve faithfulness. The reasoners are tasked with generating reasoning chains for knowledge-intensive problems by mimicking human causal reasoning. Meanwhile, the evaluator scrutinizes the causal consistency of a reasoner's reasoning chain from a non-causal and a counterfactual perspective. Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations across text-based and multi-modal knowledge reasoning tasks (e.g., science question answering and commonsense reasoning).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2308.11914

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One of the most foundational challenges lies in the agents' inability to reason causally.

    “One of the most foundational challenges lies in the agents' inability to reason causally [180, 181].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [181]

    The Abstract and Evaluation Reasoning section identify inferential errors and insufficient attention to causal consistency as challenges for foundation-model reasoning. But the claim’s categorical description of agents as unable to reason causally overstates the paper: the ‘Causality in Foundation Models’ section says causal abilities are debated and reports improvements on causal benchmarks (page not available in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The absence of causal reasoning leads to unpredictable behavior under distributional shift.

    “The absence of causal reasoning leads to unpredictable behavior under distributional shift [181, 204].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [181]

    The Evaluation Reasoning section says that unaddressed factual and inferential errors can cascade into misleading conclusions and reduced decision quality. This supports a general link between weaknesses in reasoning and unreliable outcomes, but the paper does not say that the behavior occurs under distributional shift or describe it as unpredictable; searches for distribution shift and out-of-distribution generalization found no such passage. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. M. Wang, Y. Yao, Z. Xu, S. Qiao, S. Deng, P. Wang, X. Chen, J.-C. Gu, Y. Jiang, P. Xie, F. Huang, H. Chen, and N. Zhang, "Knowledge mechanisms in large language models: A survey and perspective," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, Y. Al-Onaizan, M. Bansal, and Y.-N. Chen, Eds. Miami, Florida, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 2024, pp. 7097-7135. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-emnlp.416
  2. A. Roberts, C. Raffel, and N. Shazeer, "How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model?" in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y. He, and Y. Liu, Eds. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 2020, pp. 5418-5426. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2020.emnlp-main.437
  3. J. Huang and K. C.-C. Chang, "Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, A. Rogers, J. Boyd- Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2023, pp. 1049-1065. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.67
  4. K.-H. Huang, H. P. Chan, and H. Ji, "Zero-shot faithful factual error correction," in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2023, pp. 5660-5676. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.311
  5. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V. Le, D. Zhou et al., "Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 24 824-24 837, 2022.
  6. J. Yan, J. Xu, C. Song, C. Wu, Y. Li, and Y. Zhang, "Understanding in-context learning from repetitions," in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=bGGYcvw8mp
  7. Q. Liu, J. Qin, W. Ye, H. Mou, Y. He, and K. Wang, "Adaptive prompt routing for arbitrary text style transfer with pre-trained language models," Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 17, pp. 18 689-18 697, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/29832
  8. X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. V. Le, E. H. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou, "Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models," in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw
  9. Y. Fu, H. Peng, A. Sabharwal, P. Clark, and T. Khot, "Complexity- based prompting for multi-step reasoning," in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  10. O. Yoran, T. Wolfson, B. Bogin, U. Katz, D. Deutch, and J. Berant, "Answering questions by meta-reasoning over multiple chains of thought," in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2023, pp. 5942-5966. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.364
  11. S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. L. Griffiths, Y. Cao, and K. R. Narasimhan, "Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models," in Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=5Xc1ecxO1h
  12. L. Wang, W. Xu, Y. Lan, Z. Hu, Y. Lan, R. K.-W. Lee, and E.-P. Lim, "Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models," in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2023, pp. 2609- 2634. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.147
  13. O. Press, M. Zhang, S. Min, L. Schmidt, N. Smith, and M. Lewis, "Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2023, pp. 5687-5711. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.378
  14. Y. Yao, Z. Li, and H. Zhao, "Beyond chain-of-thought, effective graph-of-thought reasoning in large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16582, 2023. · arXiv
  15. J. Shah, P. Conrad, and B. Williams, "Fast distributed multi-agent plan execution with dynamic task assignment and scheduling," Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 289-296, Oct. 2009. [Online]. Available: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICAPS/article/view/13362
  16. G. Li, H. A. A. K. Hammoud, H. Itani, D. Khizbullin, and B. Ghanem, "CAMEL: Communicative agents for "mind" exploration of large language model society," in Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=3IyL2XWDkG
  17. H. Wang and K.-F. Wong, "A collaborative multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for dialog action decomposition," in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, M.-F. Moens, X. Huang, L. Specia, and S. W.-t. Yih, Eds. Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic: Association for Computational Linguistics, Nov. 2021, pp. 7882-7889. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2021.emnlp-main.621
  18. Y. Du, "Cooperative multi-agent learning in a complex world: Challenges and solutions," Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 13, pp. 15 436-15 436, Sep. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/26803
  19. W. Chen, Y. Su, J. Zuo, C. Yang, C. Yuan, C. Qian, C.-M. Chan, Y. Qin, Y. Lu, R. Xie, Z. Liu, M. Sun, and J. Zhou, "Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors," in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=EHg5GDnyq1
  20. Y. Chen, Q. Fu, Y. Yuan, Z. Wen, G. Fan, D. Liu, D. Zhang, Z. Li, and Y. Xiao, "Hallucination detection: Robustly discerning reliable answers in large language models," in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, ser. CIKM '23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 245-255. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3583780.3614905 · DOI
  21. R. Li and X. Du, "Leveraging structured information for explainable multi-hop question answering and reasoning," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2023, pp. 6779-6789. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-emnlp.452
  22. J. Li, X. Cheng, X. Zhao, J.-Y. Nie, and J.-R. Wen, "HaluEval: A large- scale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models," in Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2023, pp. 6449-6464. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.397
  23. S. Hong, M. Zhuge, J. Chen, X. Zheng, Y. Cheng, J. Wang, C. Zhang, Z. Wang, S. K. S. Yau, Z. Lin, L. Zhou, C. Ran, L. Xiao, C. Wu, and J. Schmidhuber, "MetaGPT: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework," in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=VtmBAGCN7o
  24. J. Zhou, S. Wang, J. Dong, L. Li, J. Gao, L. Kong, and C. Wu, "Proreason: Multi-modal proactive reasoning with decoupled eyesight and wisdom," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14138 · arXiv
  25. J. Wei, Y. Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, B. Zoph, S. Borgeaud, D. Yogatama, M. Bosma, D. Zhou, D. Metzler et al., "Emergent abilities of large language models," Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022.
  26. D. Zhou, N. Schärli, L. Hou, J. Wei, N. Scales, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, C. Cui, O. Bousquet, Q. V. Le, and E. H. Chi, "Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models," in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=WZH7099tgfM
  27. P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V. Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rocktäschel et al., "Retrieval- augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 9459-9474, 2020.
  28. S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, J. Hoffmann, T. Cai, E. Rutherford, K. Millican, G. B. Van Den Driessche, J.-B. Lespiau, B. Damoc, A. Clark et al., "Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens," in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 2206- 2240.
  29. D. Yu, S. Zhang, P. Ng, H. Zhu, A. H. Li, J. Wang, Y. Hu, W. Y. Wang, Z. Wang, and B. Xiang, "Decaf: Joint decoding of answers and logical forms for question answering over knowledge bases," in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  30. C. Mitra, B. Huang, T. Darrell, and R. Herzig, "Compositional chain of thought prompting for large multimodal models," in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2024.
  31. Z. Zhang, A. Zhang, M. Li, H. Zhao, G. Karypis, and A. Smola, "Multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning in language models," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00923 · arXiv
  32. M. Zečević, M. Willig, D. S. Dhami, and K. Kersting, "Causal parrots: Large language models may talk causality but are not causal," Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023.
  33. Z. Jin, J. Liu, Z. LYU, S. Poff, M. Sachan, R. Mihalcea, M. T. Diab, and B. Schölkopf, "Can large language models infer causation from correlation?" in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=vqIH0ObdqL
  34. E. Kiciman, R. Ness, A. Sharma, and C. Tan, "Causal reasoning and large language models: Opening a new frontier for causality," CoRR, vol. abs/2305.00050, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2305.00050 · DOI · Paper page
  35. A. Stolfo, Z. Jin, K. Shridhar, B. Schoelkopf, and M. Sachan, "A causal framework to quantify the robustness of mathematical reasoning with language models," in Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), A. Rogers, J. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2023, pp. 545-561. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-long.32
  36. L. Chen, T. Ban, X. Wang, D. Lyu, and H. Chen, "Mitigating prior errors in causal structure learning: Towards llm driven prior knowledge," arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07032, 2023. · arXiv
  37. S. Long, T. Schuster, and A. Piché, "Can large language models build causal graphs?" in NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Causality for Real-world Impact, 2022.
  38. T. Ban, L. Chen, X. Wang, and H. Chen, "From query tools to causal architects: Harnessing large language models for advanced causal discovery from data," arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16902, 2023. · arXiv
  39. M. Jin, Q. Yu, J. Huang, Q. Zeng, Z. Wang, W. Hua, H. Zhao, K. Mei, Y. Meng, K. Ding, F. Yang, M. Du, and Y. Zhang, "Exploring concept depth: How large language models acquire knowledge at different layers?" 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07066 · arXiv
  40. L. Yang, Z. Yu, T. Zhang, S. Cao, M. Xu, W. Zhang, J. E. Gonzalez, and B. Cui, "Buffer of thoughts: Thought-augmented reasoning with large language models," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024.
  41. P. Zhou, J. Pujara, X. Ren, X. Chen, H.-T. Cheng, Q. V. Le, E. H. Chi, D. Zhou, S. Mishra, and H. S. Zheng, "Self-discover: Large language models self-compose reasoning structures," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03620 · arXiv
  42. Z. Qi, M. Ma, J. Xu, L. L. Zhang, F. Yang, and M. Yang, "Mutual reasoning makes smaller llms stronger problem-solvers," 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06195 · arXiv
  43. A. Madaan, N. Tandon, P. Gupta, S. Hallinan, L. Gao, S. Wiegreffe, U. Alon, N. Dziri, S. Prabhumoye, Y. Yang, S. Gupta, B. P. Majumder, K. Hermann, S. Welleck, A. Yazdanbakhsh, and P. Clark, "Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback," in Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=S37hOerQLB
  44. Y. Weng, M. Zhu, F. Xia, B. Li, S. He, S. Liu, B. Sun, K. Liu, and J. Zhao, "Large language models are better reasoners with self-verification," in The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=s4xIeYimGQ
  45. J. Pearl, Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009.
  46. T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y. Matsuo, and Y. Iwasawa, "Large language models are zero-shot reasoners," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, A. H. Oh, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, and K. Cho, Eds., 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.net/forum?id=e2TBb5y0yFf
  47. P. Lu, S. Mishra, T. Xia, L. Qiu, K.-W. Chang, S.-C. Zhu, O. Tafjord, P. Clark, and A. Kalyan, "Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering," in The 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022.
  48. S. Singh, N. Wen, Y. Hou, P. Alipoormolabashi, T.-l. Wu, X. Ma, and N. Peng, "COM2SENSE: A commonsense reasoning benchmark with complementary sentences," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, C. Zong, F. Xia, W. Li, and R. Navigli, Eds. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, Aug. 2021, pp. 883-898. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2021.findings-acl.78
  49. C. Clark, K. Lee, M.-W. Chang, T. Kwiatkowski, M. Collins, and K. Toutanova, "Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions," in Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2019, pp. 2924-2936.
  50. C. Fu, P. Chen, Y. Shen, Y. Qin, M. Zhang, X. Lin, J. Yang, X. Zheng, K. Li, X. Sun et al., "Mme: A comprehensive evaluation benchmark for multimodal large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13394, 2023. · arXiv
  51. X. Yue, Y. Ni, K. Zhang, T. Zheng, R. Liu, G. Zhang, S. Stevens, D. Jiang, W. Ren, Y. Sun, C. Wei, B. Yu, R. Yuan, R. Sun, M. Yin, B. Zheng, Z. Yang, Y. Liu, W. Huang, H. Sun, Y. Su, and W. Chen, "Mmmu: A massive multi-discipline multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark for expert agi," in Proceedings of CVPR, 2024.
  52. L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray et al., "Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 27 730-27 744, 2022.
  53. Z. Chen, J. Wu, W. Wang, W. Su, G. Chen, S. Xing, M. Zhong, Q. Zhang, X. Zhu, L. Lu, B. Li, P. Luo, T. Lu, Y. Qiao, and J. Dai, "Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks," arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14238, 2023. · arXiv
  54. P. Wang, S. Bai, S. Tan, S. Wang, Z. Fan, J. Bai, K. Chen, X. Liu, J. Wang, W. Ge, Y. Fan, K. Dang, M. Du, X. Ren, R. Men, D. Liu, C. Zhou, J. Zhou, and J. Lin, "Qwen2-vl: Enhancing vision-language model's perception of the world at any resolution," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12191, 2024. · arXiv
  55. X. Ning, Z. Lin, Z. Zhou, Z. Wang, H. Yang, and Y. Wang, "Skeleton- of-thought: Prompting LLMs for efficient parallel generation," in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=mqVgBbNCm9
  56. S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. R. Narasimhan, and Y. Cao, "React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models," in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=WE vluYUL-X

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tang, Z., Wang, R., Chen, W., Zheng, Y., Chen, Z., Liu, Y., Wang, K., Chen, T., & Lin, L.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386148213
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
multi-agent systems, chain-of-thought reasoning, causal consistency, knowledge reasoning, large language models, reasoning faithfulness, causal reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, reasoning evaluation, commonsense reasoning, cognitive biases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review