Papers › REFACT: Adaptive Fact Restatement for Compact and Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
REFACT: Adaptive Fact Restatement for Compact and Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Zhensheng Jin, Xin Dai, Zhenghao Liu, Chaojun Xiao, Huiyuan Xie, Yu Gu, Ge Yu, Maosong Sun
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly leverage long-form reasoning to solve complex tasks, yet their reasoning processes can deviate from the provided context when evidence is incomplete, noisy, or conflicts with parametric knowledge. Existing grounding approaches either append citations after generation or encourage LLMs to retrieve evidence during reasoning, but they often fail to ensure that cited information is sufficient to support intermediate inferences and final answers. To address this limitation, we propose REFACT, an adaptive fact-restatement citation framework that enables LLMs to determine when contextual grounding is needed and selectively restate source facts at appropriate levels of detail for reliable reasoning. To facilitate adaptive citation during reasoning, REFACT first leverages a teacher LLM to construct high-quality citation-aware reasoning trajectories under diverse context conditions with varying evidence lengths, and then optimizes the student LLM through a two-stage SFT-to-RL framework. Experiments on LongBench, LV-Eval, and ConFiQA demonstrate that REFACT improves long-context question answering and counterfactual faithfulness while substantially reducing the number of reasoning tokens. Further analysis reveals that REFACT achieves higher evidence density by preserving more answer-relevant facts with fewer restatements, producing reasoning traces that are more concise yet better grounded. All code and data will be released via https://github.com/NEUIR/REFACT.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2607.20833")
Code
Syntology Ran 15 of 18 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · honoured contract; 13 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 18 samples from 1 repository, 15 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
18 samples harvested; 15 ran; 2 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 18 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from NEUIR/REFACT. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
ebd6381b02520d2d · report
b1880b7a6de2ae1e · report
9e6b589fdfaeb537 · report
ecc47b6b4d41b5db · report
db7ce8c1dc973b28 · report
3cd1dee651cfd765 · report
4d92d68ee8b1751a · report
674ae67e62634080 · report
c332380df390895f · report
6cbc0e7d0d552639 · report
e7d2521232a52df8 · report
ef36c60282378811 · report
445de90902805074 · report
342dae28f0739a66 · report
81a9940880b8ee28 · report
a454976b1cbb2d6e · report
2ec851c317dbc4a5 · report
07cb88ee030c323c · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2607.20833, was issued in July 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Placed on leaderboards by Syntology Syntology
Syntology's extractor considered 2 leaderboards for this paper and placed the paper on none of them: 2 refused by a rule. What is not shown.
Syntology has checked 6,264 of the 9,581 papers on this site that are newer than the archive; results from the others appear after they are checked.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections