Back to Details

fact-check

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese
Fact-check the following claim: "$ARGUMENTS"
对以下主张进行事实核查："$ARGUMENTS"

1. Decompose

1. 拆解

Break the claim into specific, verifiable sub-claims. List them explicitly before searching.
将主张拆分为具体、可验证的子主张。在搜索前明确列出这些子主张。

2. Search for Evidence

2. 搜索证据

For each sub-claim:
paper-search google web "<sub-claim as question>"
paper-search semanticscholar snippets "<sub-claim keywords>"
paper-search semanticscholar papers "<sub-claim keywords>" --limit 5
针对每个子主张：
paper-search google web "<以问题形式呈现的子主张>"
paper-search semanticscholar snippets "<子主张关键词>"
paper-search semanticscholar papers "<子主张关键词>" --limit 5

3. Verify Sources

3. 验证来源

For each promising source:
paper read <arxiv_id> <relevant section>   # for academic papers
paper-search browse <url>                   # for web pages
Prefer primary sources (original papers, official data) over secondary reports.
针对每个有价值的来源：
paper read <arxiv_id> <相关章节>   # 针对学术论文
paper-search browse <url>                   # 针对网页
优先选择一手来源（原始论文、官方数据）而非二手报道。

4. Assess

4. 评估

For each sub-claim, assign a verdict:
  • Supported: strong evidence from multiple reliable sources
  • Partially supported: some evidence, with caveats
  • Unsupported: no evidence found, or evidence contradicts the claim
  • Uncertain: insufficient evidence to judge
为每个子主张给出判定结果：
  • 支持：来自多个可靠来源的有力证据
  • 部分支持：有一些证据，但存在限制条件
  • 不支持：未找到证据，或证据与主张矛盾
  • 不确定：证据不足以做出判断

5. Report

5. 报告

Present:
  • The original claim
  • Each sub-claim with its verdict and supporting evidence
  • An overall assessment
  • All sources cited with URLs
呈现以下内容：
  • 原始主张
  • 每个子主张及其判定结果和支持证据
  • 整体评估
  • 所有引用的来源及URL

Guidelines

指导原则

  • Always cite specific sources — never state a verdict without evidence.
  • Distinguish between "no evidence found" and "evidence contradicts."
  • Note the quality and recency of sources.
  • If a claim is about a specific paper, read that paper directly rather than relying on summaries.
  • 始终引用具体来源——绝不能在没有证据的情况下给出判定结果。
  • 区分“未找到证据”和“证据矛盾”。
  • 注意来源的质量和时效性。
  • 如果主张涉及某篇特定论文，直接阅读该论文而非依赖摘要。