gia-evidence-finder 0.1.1

Find source-backed evidence for claims

gia evidence finder

Find source-backed evidence for claims.

gia evidence finder extracts the smallest source spans that directly support a claim, rejects near misses, detects contradictions, handles numeric and date mismatches, abstains when support is absent, and returns traceable evidence instead of generated prose.

Most retrieval tools return semantically similar chunks. gia evidence finder is stricter: it asks whether a span actually supports the claim.

Install

pip install gia-evidence-finder

Optional model and training dependencies are split out:

pip install "gia-evidence-finder[models]"
pip install "gia-evidence-finder[training]"

Quick Example

from gia_evidence_finder import EvidenceExtractor, MarkdownSpanParser, compile_intent

document = MarkdownSpanParser().parse(
    """
# README

No evaluation, no search, no opening book.
UltraChess is a browser-based chess variant playground.
""",
    document_id="readme",
)

intent = compile_intent("includes evaluation, search, and an opening book")
result = EvidenceExtractor.default().extract(intent, document)

assert result.abstained
assert result.candidates[0].label == "contradicts"

For a supported claim:

intent = compile_intent("UltraChess is browser-based")
result = EvidenceExtractor.default().extract(intent, document)

assert not result.abstained
print(result.matches[0].span.text)

CLI

gia-evidence-finder extract README.md \
  --claim "the project supports browser-based play"

Run the deterministic benchmark gates:

gia-evidence-finder benchmark-series --split all --calibrate-thresholds
gia-evidence-finder benchmark-series --series polarity_evidence_benchmark_v1 --split all
gia-evidence-finder benchmark-series --series quantifier_binding_evidence_benchmark_v2 --split all

Run competitor reports:

gia-evidence-finder benchmark-competitors \
  --series domain_evidence_benchmark_v4 \
  --split test

Core Concepts

• EvidenceDocument: parsed source text with stable spans.
• DocumentSpan: a sentence, paragraph, bullet, table row, heading, or code span with offsets and context.
• IntentSpec: typed evidence intent for a claim.
• SpanMatch: a candidate span with score, label, features, and reasons.
• SupportLabel: supports, near_miss, contradicts, insufficient_context, reject, or abstain.
• ExtractionResult: final matches, rejected/diagnostic candidates, and trace.

What It Handles

gia evidence finder is not a summarizer and not just semantic retrieval. It takes a claim or typed intent, scores source spans, and decides whether each candidate is direct support, a near miss, a contradiction, insufficient context, or irrelevant.

It handles these evidence patterns:

• Direct support: the claim is actually stated by the source.

  • Claim: UltraChess is browser-based.
  • Source: UltraChess is a browser-based chess variant playground.
  • Result: returns the sentence as supports.

• Smallest useful span extraction: when a paragraph, section, or heading is related, the extractor still prefers the minimal sentence, bullet, code block, or table row that proves the claim.

  • Claim: the quality gate runs ruff, mypy, and pytest.
  • Source: uv run ruff check . && uv run mypy && uv run pytest.
  • Result: returns the code span, not the whole README section.

• Near-miss refusal: a span can share many words with the claim and still fail to prove it.

  • Claim: FastAPI provides automatic interactive docs, not runtime speed.
  • Source: Very high performance, on par with NodeJS and Go.
  • Result: labels the speed span as near_miss, not support for the docs claim.

• Contradiction and negation: the extractor distinguishes positive claims from negative source text, and negative claims from negative support.

  • Claim: includes evaluation, search, and an opening book.
  • Source: No evaluation, no search, no opening book.
  • Result: labels the span as contradicts.
  • Claim: has no evaluation, no search, and no opening book.
  • Source: No evaluation, no search, no opening book.
  • Result: returns the same span as supports.

• Explicit counterclaims: if the source says the claim is false and gives the opposite policy, it is a contradiction even when lexical overlap is high.

  • Claim: PR discussion forbids open semantic gate diagnostics.
  • Source: PR discussion does not forbid open semantic gate diagnostics; it requires open semantic gate diagnostics.
  • Result: labels the span as contradicts.

• Insufficient-context refusal: the extractor can return the best diagnostic span explaining why a claim is not proven.

  • Claim: a dependent library itself provides open semantic gate diagnostics.
  • Source: A dependent library is mentioned near open semantic gate diagnostics, but this does not prove the dependency provides it.
  • Result: labels the span as insufficient_context.

• Relation and subject binding: true facts do not get transferred across nearby entities.

  • Claim: Pydantic itself is on par with NodeJS and Go.
  • Source: FastAPI is very high performance, on par with NodeJS and Go, thanks to Starlette and Pydantic.
  • Result: abstains because the performance claim belongs to FastAPI, not Pydantic.

• Source reliability conflicts: a current or official source can support a claim while an old note, archived note, or outdated blurb is treated as a conflicting diagnostic span.

  • Claim: the current spec says open semantic gate diagnostics is required.
  • Source: The current spec says open semantic gate diagnostics is required.
  • Conflicting source: An archived note incorrectly says open semantic gate diagnostics is optional.
  • Result: returns the current spec as support and keeps the archived note as a contradiction candidate.

• Numeric, date, money, duration, percentage, version, and range checks: semantically similar spans are rejected when the value is wrong.

  • Claim: OAuth hardening project was created in 2026.
  • Source: OAuth hardening project was created in 2025.
  • Result: labels the source as contradicts.

• Role-bound quantities: matching numbers are not enough; the number must be attached to the right local role.

  • Claim: Project started in 2024 and ended in 2025.
  • Source: Project started in 2025 and ended in 2024.
  • Result: labels the swapped dates as contradicts.
  • Claim: Rent is $3,200 and deposit is $1,000.
  • Source: Rent is $1,000 and deposit is $3,200.
  • Result: labels the swapped money roles as contradicts.

• Deterministic abstention: when no span directly supports the claim, the extractor returns no support matches and keeps ranked diagnostic candidates for review.

• Traceable outputs: every SpanMatch includes a stable span id, source offsets, label, score, feature breakdown, and reasons so downstream systems can audit why a span was accepted or rejected.

Why This Exists

Applications that build claim graphs, semantic search systems, agents, or review pipelines need a stricter primitive than chunk retrieval. A semantically similar chunk can still be wrong evidence. gia evidence finder is designed to answer the narrower question:

Does this source span directly support this claim?

It can be used independently, or as the source-grounding layer for systems that turn documents, comments, record fields, READMEs, PDFs, specs, and tickets into reviewable claims.

Benchmarks

The benchmark suite is versioned and intentionally reports support quality, abstention quality, and false-support risk separately.

Current benchmark coverage includes:

• popular README excerpts;
• hard README paraphrases and near misses;
• relation-binding traps;
• non-README specs, runbooks, release notes, and issue discussions;
• project-management, people-search, apartment-search, and technical/product source artifacts;
• polarity and negation cases;
• numeric, date, money, version, duration, and role-bound quantity cases.

The strongest measured direction is:

typed deterministic support/abstain judgment
+ optional trained reranker ordering

The current reports show the typed default and typed-plus-trained-reranker hybrid beating keyword overlap, BM25, embedding retrieval, and several generic reranker setups on the reviewed evidence task, especially around support/abstention, relation binding, negation, and numeric/date safety.

This is not a broad public SOTA claim. Larger frozen suites and more hosted competitor runs are still required before making industry-wide claims.

See:

• docs/benchmark-series.md
• docs/model-baseline-results.md
• docs/domain-competitor-benchmarking.md
• docs/polarity-negation-implementation-2026-05-08.md
• docs/quantifier-date-implementation-2026-05-09.md
• docs/quantifier-binding-implementation-2026-05-09.md

Development

This repository uses uv.

uv sync --dev
uv run ruff check .
uv run mypy
uv run pytest

Build the package:

uv build

Publishing is automated through GitHub Actions. To publish a new PyPI release, bump version in pyproject.toml and merge to main; the Publish workflow runs the quality gate, builds the package, checks whether that version already exists on PyPI, and publishes only new versions through PyPI Trusted Publishing.

Manual TestPyPI publishing is still useful for release candidates:

uv publish --publish-url https://test.pypi.org/legacy/

Repository Hygiene

Do not commit local benchmark downloads, generated review files, model caches, virtualenvs, or package build outputs. The benchmark acquisition commands write to .tmp/ by default, and .tmp/ is intentionally ignored.

License

Apache-2.0.