LLMs require curated context for reliable political fact-checking

A study evaluating 15 large language models from OpenAI, Google, Meta, and DeepSeek on over 6,000 political claims found that standard models performed poorly at fact-checking, with reasoning capabilities offering minimal improvement and web search providing only moderate gains. In contrast, a curated retrieval-augmented generation system using PolitiFact summaries improved macro F1 scores by 233% on average. The findings indicate that automated political fact-checking requires access to curated, high-quality context rather than relying on reasoning or web search alone.

Computer Science Computation and Language Submitted on 24 Nov 2025 Title:Large Language Models Require Curated Context for Reliable Political Fact-Checking -- Even with Reasoning and Web Search View PDF /pdf/2511.18749 Abstract:Large language models LLMs have raised hopes for automated end-to-end fact-checking, but prior studies report mixed results. As mainstream chatbots increasingly ship with reasoning capabilities and web search tools -- and millions of users already rely on them for verification -- rigorous evaluation is urgent. We evaluate 15 recent LLMs from OpenAI, Google, Meta, and DeepSeek on more than 6,000 claims fact-checked by PolitiFact, comparing standard models with reasoning- and web-search variants. Standard models perform poorly, reasoning offers minimal benefits, and web search provides only moderate gains, despite fact-checks being available on the web. In contrast, a curated RAG system using PolitiFact summaries improved macro F1 by 233% on average across model variants. These findings suggest that giving models access to curated high-quality context is a promising path for automated fact-checking. Submission history From: Matthew R. DeVerna view email /show-email/fc771b32/2511.18749 v1 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 04:22:32 UTC 479 KB Current browse context: cs.CL References & Citations Loading... Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer What is the Explorer? https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html arxiv-bibliographic-explorer Connected Papers What is Connected Papers? https://www.connectedpapers.com/about Litmaps What is Litmaps? https://www.litmaps.co/ scite Smart Citations What are Smart Citations? https://www.scite.ai/ Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv What is alphaXiv? https://alphaxiv.org/ CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers What is CatalyzeX? https://www.catalyzex.com DagsHub What is DagsHub? https://dagshub.com/ Gotit.pub What is GotitPub? http://gotit.pub/faq Hugging Face What is Huggingface? https://huggingface.co/huggingface ScienceCast What is ScienceCast? https://sciencecast.org/welcome Demos Recommenders and Search Tools Influence Flower What are Influence Flowers? https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/ CORE Recommender What is CORE? https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html .