Cited by 7Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

The Effect of Scaling, Retrieval Augmentation and Form on the Factual Consistency of Language Models

Open access
Hagström, Lovisa, Saynova, Denitsa, Norlund, Tobias, Johansson, Moa, Johansson, Richard·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) make natural interfaces to factual knowledge, but their usefulness is limited by their tendency to deliver inconsistent answers to semantically equivalent questions.For example, a model might predict both "Anne Redpath passed away in Edinburgh."and "Anne Redpath's life ended in London."In this work, we identify potential causes of inconsistency and evaluate the effectiveness of two mitigation strategies: up-scaling and augmenting the LM with a retrieval corpus.Our results on the LLaMA and Atlas models show that both strategies reduce inconsistency while retrieval augmentation is considerably more efficient.We further consider and disentangle the consistency contributions of different components of Atlas.For all LMs evaluated we find that syntactical form and other evaluation task artifacts impact consistency.Taken together, our results provide a better understanding of the factors affecting the factual consistency of language models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.332

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hagström, L., Saynova, D., Norlund, T., Johansson, M., & Johansson, R.
Affiliations
Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
Corresponding author
Saynova, Denitsa
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2023
Pages
5457-5476
OpenAlex
W4389518682
Cited by
6
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.07
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2022-06725)
  • Marcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfond
  • National Supercomputer Centre, Linköpings Universitet (2022-06725)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
factual consistency, large language models, retrieval augmentation, upscaling, factual knowledge retrieval, llamas, syntactic form, evaluation artifacts, factual knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review