Current Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit limited ability to understand table structures and to apply precise numerical reasoning, which is crucial for tasks such as table question answering and table-based fact verification. To address these challenges, we introduce our Tool-Augmented Reasoning framework for Tables (TART), which integrates LLMs with specialized tools. TART contains three key components: a table formatter to ensure accurate data representation, a tool maker to develop specific computational tools, and an explanation generator to maintain explainability. We also present the TOOLTAB dataset, a new benchmark designed specifically for training LLMs in table–tool integration. Our experiments indicate that TART achieves substantial improvements over existing methods (e.g., Chain-of-Thought) by improving both the precision of data processing and the clarity of the reasoning process. Notably, TART paired with CodeLlama achieves 90.0% of the accuracy of the closed-sourced LLM GPT-3.5-turbo, highlighting its robustness in diverse real-world scenarios. Both code and data are openly available at https://github.com/XinyuanLu00/TART.

Fact-checking real-world claims often requires collecting multiple pieces of evidence and applying complex multi-step reasoning. In this paper, we present Program-Guided Fact-Checking (ProgramFC), a novel fact-checking model that decomposes complex claims into simpler sub-tasks that can be solved using a shared library of specialized functions. We first leverage the in-context learning ability of large language models to generate reasoning programs to guide the verification process. Afterward, we execute the program by delegating each sub-task to the corresponding sub-task handler. This process makes our model both explanatory and data-efficient, providing clear explanations of its reasoning process and requiring minimal training data. We evaluate ProgramFC on two challenging fact-checking datasets and show that it outperforms seven fact-checking baselines across different settings of evidence availability, with explicit output programs that benefit human debugging. Our codes and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/ProgramFC.

Current scientific fact-checking benchmarks exhibit several shortcomings, such as biases arising from crowd-sourced claims and an over-reliance on text-based evidence. We present SCITAB, a challenging evaluation dataset consisting of 1.2K expert-verified scientific claims that 1) originate from authentic scientific publications and 2) require compositional reasoning for verification. The claims are paired with evidence-containing scientific tables annotated with labels. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrate that SCITAB poses a significant challenge to state-of-the-art models, including table-based pretraining models and large language models. All models except GPT-4 achieved performance barely above random guessing. Popular prompting techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought, do not achieve much performance gains on SCITAB. Our analysis uncovers several unique challenges posed by SCITAB, including table grounding, claim ambiguity, and compositional reasoning. Our codes and data are publicly available at https://github.com/XinyuanLu00/SciTab.

Fact-checking real-world claims often requires intricate, multi-step reasoning due to the absence of direct evidence to support or refute them. However, existing fact-checking systems often lack transparency in their decision-making, making it challenging for users to comprehend their reasoning process. To address this, we propose the Question-guided Multi-hop Fact-Checking (QACheck) system, which guides the model’s reasoning process by asking a series of questions critical for verifying a claim. QACheck has five key modules: a claim verifier, a question generator, a question-answering module, a QA validator, and a reasoner. Users can input a claim into QACheck, which then predicts its veracity and provides a comprehensive report detailing its reasoning process, guided by a sequence of (question, answer) pairs. QACheck also provides the source of evidence supporting each question, fostering a transparent, explainable, and user-friendly fact-checking process.