CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 56Topic ModelingMisinformation and Its ImpactsNatural Language Processing Techniques

MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents

Open access
Tang, Liyan, Laban, Philippe, Durrett, Greg·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2404.10774arXiv 2404.10774
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recognizing if LLM output can be grounded in evidence is central to many tasks in NLP: retrieval-augmented generation, summarization, document-grounded dialogue, and more. Current approaches to this kind of fact-checking are based on verifying each piece of a model generation against potential evidence using an LLM. However, this process can be very computationally expensive, requiring many calls to a model to check a single response. In this work, we show how to build small fact-checking models that have GPT-4-level performance but for 400x lower cost. We do this by constructing synthetic training data with GPT-4, which involves creating realistic yet challenging instances of factual errors via a structured generation procedure. Training on this data teaches models to check each fact in the claim and recognize synthesis of information across sentences. For evaluation, we unify datasets from recent work on fact-checking and grounding LLM generations into a new benchmark, LLM-AggreFact. Our best system MiniCheck-FT5 (770M parameters) outperforms all systems of comparable size and reaches GPT-4 accuracy. We release LLM-AggreFact, code for data synthesis, and models.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

MiniCheck builds small fact-checking models trained on synthetic data that verify LLM claims against grounding documents, matching GPT-4-level accuracy on a new unified benchmark while being over 400× cheaper. The best model, MiniCheck-FT5 (770M parameters), outperforms prior specialized fact-checkers and does not require claim decomposition.

Key findings

  • MiniCheck-FT5 achieves 74.7 average balanced accuracy on LLM-AGGREFACT without threshold tuning, compared with 70.4 for AlignScore (a 4.3% absolute improvement), and is close to GPT-4’s 75.3 and Claude-3 Opus’s 74.1.
  • MiniCheck-FT5 has almost the same performance as GPT-4 but is more than 400× cheaper; on the 13K test set, GPT-4 costs $107 while MiniCheck-FT5 costs $0.24 under the paper’s GPU-hour pricing.
  • The synthetic data improves three backbone architectures (RoBERTa, DeBERTa, Flan-T5); MiniCheck-FT5 outperforms AlignScore on 6 of 10 datasets and matches it on the remaining 4.
  • Claim decomposition is not needed in these settings: GPT-4 changes by ↑0.3 average BAcc with decomposition, while MiniCheck-FT5 drops by 1.4; decontextualization also does not help on the benchmark, with MiniCheck-FT5 dropping 0.6.

Methods

  • The authors construct synthetic training data with two methods: Claim-to-Doc (C2D), which decomposes human-written claims and uses GPT-4 to generate supporting and non-supporting documents, and Doc-to-Claim (D2C), which chunks human-written documents, summarizes chunks, and creates augmented claims and documents.
  • MiniCheck models are fine-tuned on 14K synthetic datapoints plus a 21K subset of ANLI (35K total) using Flan-T5-large, DeBERTa-v3-large, and AlignScore’s tuned RoBERTa-large; training uses cross-entropy loss and a two-stage pipeline for the final models.
  • Evaluation uses LLM-AGGREFACT, a new benchmark aggregating 10 human-annotated datasets across closed-book and grounded generation settings; performance is measured by balanced accuracy, with thresholds set at the midpoint of score ranges unless otherwise specified.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the models do not reveal internal decision-making processes, making it hard to localize errors to particular claim or document spans; decomposition can help interpretability but is not a full solution.
  • The paper states that the benchmark does not require reasoning over evidence significantly separated or spread across multiple documents, leaving multi-document reasoning as future work.
  • The paper states that models are trained exclusively on English data and multilingual performance is not systematically assessed.
  • The paper states that synthetic data quality is imperfect: automatic labels have 80% accuracy on C2D and 78% on D2C versus human annotator averages of 85% and 88%, with Fleiss’ Kappa of 0.51 for C2D and 0.70 for D2C.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.10774

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

33 of 55 cited sources checked · 23 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Decomposition of sentences into atomic facts is not necessary to achieve MiniCheck's high performance.

    “Furthermore, we can do this without a separate claim decomposition step.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kamoi et al., 2023 source

      The “2.1 Claim-Split using LLMs” section describes decomposing claims before annotation, and Appendix D.1 describes a separate decomposition prompt. Our copy does not discuss MiniCheck or whether its performance can be achieved without a separate claim-decomposition step (searched: “without a separate claim decomposition step” and “MiniCheck high performance without decomposition atomic facts”). (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Gao et al., 2023 source

      In “B Details on automated evaluation” (page not available), RARR says it uses sentences as claims rather than independently decomposing each sentence’s claims. That supports the feasibility of omitting a separate claim-decomposition step in RARR’s evaluation, but the paper does not establish that decomposition is unnecessary for MiniCheck’s high performance. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Wang et al., 2023 source

      The Fine-grained Annotation Framework (§2; page unavailable) describes decomposition as the first step of this paper’s fact-checking pipeline, and the Sentence split and atomic claims breaking-down section explains how it is performed. Neither passage assesses MiniCheck’s performance or whether MiniCheck can operate without a separate decomposition step (searched: MiniCheck, performance without decomposition). The paper’s use of decomposition does not establish what another system requires. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Even when LLMs are provided with gold documents, such as in text summarization and simplification tasks, they still generate factually inconsistent outputs with diverse error types across different domains.

    “Even when LLMs are provided with gold documents, such as in text summarization and simplification tasks, they still generate factually inconsistent outputs with diverse error types across different domains (Joseph et al., 2023;Shaib et al., 2023;Tang et al., 2024Tang et al., , 2023c)).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Joseph et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Shaib et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Tang et al., 2024 source

      Section 3.1 (page not available) says the study selected source documents from two dialogue datasets, MediaSum and MeetingBank. Appendix D.2 reports factually inconsistent LLM-generated summaries, and Appendix G.2 describes annotations of multiple error types. The paper supports the claim for dialogue summarization, but does not establish it for text simplification or domains beyond those studied. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    In retrieval-augmented settings, LLMs may generate supplementary information that is not faithful to the provided documents.

    “In retrieval-augmented settings, where models have access to external documents to provide responses to user queries, they may generate supplementary information that is not faithful to the provided documents (Chiesurin et al., 2023;Adlakha et al., 2023;Chen et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chiesurin et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Adlakha et al., 2023 source
    • cites Chen et al., 2024 source
  • Premisecitation

    Data in AGGREFACT comes from 9 factual consistency evaluation datasets on CNN or XSum, including SummaC, FRANK, and SummEval.

    “Data in AG-GREFACT comes from 9 factual consistency evaluation datasets on CNN or XSum, including widely used ones such as SummaC (Laban et al., 2022), FRANK (Pagnoni et al., 2021), and SummEval (Fabbri et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Laban et al., 2022 source
    • cites Pagnoni et al., 2021 source
    • cites Fabbri et al., 2021 source
  • Premisecitation

    Prior synthetic data generation methods such as entity swapping and sentence negation were designed to target specific error types that occurred in claims from earlier summarization models.

    “These methods, such as entity swapping and sentence negation (Kryscinski et al., 2020;Goyal and Durrett, 2021), were designed to target specific error types that occurred in claims from earlier summarization models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kryscinski et al., 2020 source
    • cites Goyal and Durrett, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 53
  • May combine two claims. 44
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    FActScore biographies contain 26-41 atomic facts checked against 5 documents each, resulting in 130-205 entailment checks.

    “For instance, the 110-150 word biographies in FActScore (Min et al., 2023) contain 26-41 atomic facts that are checked against 5 documents each, resulting in 130-205 entailment checks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Min et al., 2023 source

      Section 3.3 (p. 4) reports averages of 26.3–40.8 atomic facts per biography, but gives response lengths in tokens, not words. Section B.1 (p. 17) says the automated evaluator retrieves five passages from the subject’s Wikipedia page, not five documents; Section 4.1 (p. 6) says it combines those passages into one prompt per fact. The paper therefore does not support 130–205 separate entailment checks. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most prior entailment datasets have been human-authored, which is known to introduce artifacts, or collected in the wild, which is challenging to scale.

    “Most prior entailment datasets have been human-authored (Bowman et al., 2015;Williams et al., 2018), which is known to introduce artifacts (Gururangan et al., 2018), or collected in the wild (Kamoi et al., 2023), which is challenging to scale.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bowman et al., 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Williams et al., 2018 source
    • cites Gururangan et al., 2018 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sentences generally need context to be understood, but this can be resolved through a decontextualization step.

    “In general, sentences do need context to be understood (e.g., most sentences starting with pronouns), but this can be resolved through the use of a decontextualization step (Choi et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Choi et al., 2021 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    CLAIMVERIFY evaluates the correctness of responses from four generative search engines in answering user queries.

    “CLAIMVERIFY (Liu et al., 2023) evaluates the correctness of responses from four generative search engines in answering user queries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2023 source

      Section 3.1 (p. 4) confirms that the study evaluates responses from four generative search engines to user queries. But the Limitations section (p. 10) says it assesses verifiability, not whether responses are factually correct. Our copy also does not identify the evaluation as CLAIMVERIFY. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    REVEAL is a benchmark dataset that evaluates the correctness of reasoning chains generated by LLMs in the context of opendomain question-answering.

    “REVEAL (Jacovi et al., 2024) is a benchmark dataset that evaluates the correctness of reasoning chains generated by LLMs in the context of opendomain question-answering.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jacovi et al., 2024 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Malaviya et al. (2024) directly search for relevant documents for each sentence as a whole.

    “Malaviya et al. (2024) directly search for relevant documents for each sentence as a whole.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Malaviya et al. (2024) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    FACTSCORE contains naturally generated biographies from LLMs and has human-annotated labels of individual atomic facts.

    “FACTSCORE (Min et al., 2023) contains naturally generated biographies from LLMs and has human-annotated labels of individual atomic facts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Min et al., 2023 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    TOFUEVAL is a factual consistency evaluation benchmark for dialogue summarization, targeting MediaSum and MeetingBank.

    “TOFUEVAL (Tang et al., 2024) is a factual consistency evaluation benchmark for dialogue summarization, targeting MediaSum (interviews, Zhu et al. (2021)) and MeetingBank (city council meetings, Hu et al. (2023)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Tang et al., 2024 source
    • cites Zhu et al., 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hu et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Gao et al. (2023), Min et al. (2023), and Wang et al. (2023) decompose each generated sentence into atomic facts and then search for relevant documents to support each atomic fact.

    “Gao et al. (2023); Min et al. (2023); Wang et al. (2023) decompose each generated sentence into atomic facts and then search for relevant documents to support each atomic fact.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gao et al. (2023) source

      The Query generation section says RARR generates questions covering aspects of a passage and retrieves web evidence for each question. It does not say RARR decomposes each sentence into atomic facts; Appendix B instead says it uses sentences as claims for evaluation. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Min et al. (2023) source
    • cites Wang et al. (2023) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AGGREFACT is a factual consistency evaluation benchmark for new summarization, targeting CNN(/DM) and XSum.

    “AGGREFACT (Tang et al., 2023a) is a factual consistency evaluation benchmark for new summarization, targeting CNN(/DM) (Nallapati et al., 2016) and XSum (Narayan et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Tang et al., 2023a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Nallapati et al., 2016 source
    • cites Narayan et al., 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    TOFUEVAL includes topic-focused dialogue summaries generated by 6 LLMs, with sentence-level factual consistency annotations by linguists.

    “It includes topic-focused dialogue summaries generated by 6 LLMs, with sentence-level factual consistency annotations by linguists.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tang et al., 2024 source

      Section 3.3 says TOFUEVAL contains topic-focused summaries generated by five LLMs, not six. The Expert Linguists passage confirms that professional linguistic annotators evaluated the factuality of individual summary sentences. (LLM, conf=0.95)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    WICE is a textual entailment dataset that consists of naturally occurring claims from Wikipedia and their cited documents.

    “WICE (Kamoi et al., 2023) is a textual entailment dataset that consists of naturally occurring claims from Wikipedia and their cited documents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kamoi et al., 2023 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    EXPERTQA contains responses from 6 different systems to queries curated by experts from 32 fields.

    “EXPERTQA (Malaviya et al., 2024) contains responses from 6 different systems to queries curated by experts from 32 fields.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Malaviya et al., 2024 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    FACTCHECK-GPT contains factual consistency annotations for LLMs' responses to search queries.

    “FACTCHECK-GPT (Wang et al., 2023) contains factual consistency annotations for LLMs' responses to search queries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al., 2023 source

      The Summary reports factual labels and revisions for 94 ChatGPT prompt–response pairs, supporting the claim that FACTCHECK-GPT contains factuality annotations of LLM responses. Section 3.1 describes the prompts as questions collected from user reports and QA datasets; it does not identify them as search queries. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    LFQA contains LLMgenerated responses to questions from the ELI5 dataset.

    “LFQA (Chen et al., 2023) contains LLMgenerated responses to questions from the ELI5 (”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 2023 source

      The Dataset section says the questions come from ELI5, and the Data Collection section describes model-generated answers to those questions. But the paper names its released dataset SALAD; it uses LFQA to mean the long-form question-answering task, not the dataset. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Fan et al., 2019 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In the closed-book setting, where LLMs rely solely on their parametric knowledge, they may fabricate details when describing biographies or providing Wikipedia entity information.

    “For example, in the closed-book setting, where LLMs rely solely on their parametric knowledge, they may fabricate details when describing biographies or providing Wikipedia entity information(Min et al., 2023;Guan et al., 2023;Mallen”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Min et al., 2023 source
    • cites Guan et al., 2023 source
    • cites Mallen

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    LLMs are prone to hallucinations across various settings, generating information that cannot be supported by any source.

    “LLMs are prone to hallucinations across various settings(Huang et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023b;Rawte et al., 2023), generating information that cannot be supported by any source.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Huang et al., 2023 source
    • cites Zhang et al., 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Rawte et al., 2023 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both decontextualization and decomposition add cost to GPT-4.

    “Both decontextualization and decomposition add cost to GPT-4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The addition of either 7K C2D or 7K D2C to the training data significantly enhances the model's performance and robustness.

    “However, the addition of either 7K C2D or 7K D2C to the training data significantly enhances the model's performance and”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The average across the three annotators' accuracies was 85% on C2D and 88% on D2C.

    “We calculated similar accuracy values for the human annotators, and the average across the three annotators' accuracies was 85% on C2D and 88% on D2C.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Most fact-checkers return scores at the extremes of the range, so small tweaks to the threshold procedure have little effect.

    “In practice, most fact-checkers return scores at the extremes of the range, so small tweaks on this procedure have little effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Claim decomposition causes near-zero performance change for GPT-4 and mixed changes for specialized fact-checkers.

    “We observe near-zero performance change for GPT-4 and mixed changes for specialized fact-checkers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Models trained on C2D and D2C outperform all other fact-checkers on the OOD held-out set of D2C and C2D, respectively.

    “In contrast, models trained on C2D and D2C outperform all other fact-checkers on the OOD held-out set of D2C and C2D, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Our best model can match GPT-4 performance and perform well in all settings without doing sentence decomposition.

    “We show that our best model can match GPT-4 performance and perform well in all settings without doing sentence decomposition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Model size alone does not guarantee superior performance, as T5-NLI-Mixed and FT5-ANLI-L underperform on most benchmark settings despite being trained on NLI datasets.

    “However, model size alone does not guarantee superior performance, as evidenced by T5-NLI-Mixed and FT5-ANLI-L, which, despite being trained on NLI datasets, underperform on most of the benchmark settings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The documents in LLM-AGGREFACT come from diverse sources including Wikipedia paragraphs, interviews, and web text, covering news, dialogue, science, and healthcare.

    “The documents come from diverse sources, including Wikipedia paragraphs, interviews, web text, covering domains such as news, dialogue, science, and healthcare.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A model fine-tuned on our synthetic data outperforms all prior specialized factcheckers on LLM-AGGREFACT, while being much cheaper than LLM-based fact-checkers.

    “A model fine-tuned on our synthetic data outperforms all prior specialized factcheckers on LLM-AGGREFACT, while being much cheaper than LLM-based fact-checkers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The threshold tuning setting yields qualitatively similar results.

    “See Appendix B.1 for the results of the threshold tuning setting, which yields qualitatively similar results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Respectively, 33%, 33%, 39%, 11%, 35%, 47%, and 57% of the claims from TOFUEVAL-MediaS, TOFUEVAL-MeetB, WICE, REVEAL, CLAIMVERIFY, EXPERTQA and LFQA are changed after decontextualization.

    “Respectively, 33%, 33%, 39%, 11%, 35%, 47%, and 57% of the claims from those datasets are changed after decontextualization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    By construction, an atomic fact in the claim is supported by its sentence pair in the generated document.

    “By construction, an atomic fact a i in the claim c is supported by the sentence pair (s i,1 , s i,2 ) mentioned in the generated document D.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    In the generated sentence pairs, an atomic fact is supported if and only if information from both sentences is combined.

    “The generated sentence pairs are designed such that the atomic fact is supported if and only if the information from both sentences is combined.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Compared to ground truth labels, the labels given to our training samples have an accuracy of 80% on C2D and 78% on D2C, respectively.

    “Compared to these ground truth labels, the labels given to our training samples have an accuracy of 80% on C2D and 78% on D2C, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Align-Score demonstrates the best performance among the four specialized metrics, but its performance can still be outperformed by FT5-C2D and FT5-D2C.

    “Notably, Align-Score demonstrates the best performance among the four specialized metrics, but its performance can still be outperformed by FT5-C2D and FT5-D2C.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among the three annotators, annotation agreement using Fleiss' Kappa was 0.51 for the C2D samples and 0.70 on the D2C samples, indicating moderate to substantial agreement.

    “Among the three annotators, we computed an annotation agreement using Fleiss' Kappa, obtaining a score of 0.51 for the C2D samples and 0.70 on the D2C samples, indicating moderate to substantial agreement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MiniCheck-FT5 achieves a 4.3% overall improvement over AlignScore, outperforming it on 6 out of 10 datasets and matching its performance on the remaining 4.

    “Notably, MiniCheck-FT5 achieves a 4.3% overall improvement over AlignScore, outperforming it on 6 out of 10 datasets and matching its performance on the remaining 4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    There are typically 2-4 atomic facts per claim across datasets.

    “There are typically 2-4 atomic facts per claim across datasets.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The same claim can be both supported and unsupported by documents.

    “The same claim can be both supported (S) and unsupported (U) by documents”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MiniCheck-DBTA uses 35K training data and costs $0.20 on the 13K LLM-AGGREFACT test set.

    “MiniCheck-RBTA AlignScore 355M MiniCheck-DBTA DeBERTa-L 355M MiniCheck-FT5 Flan-T5-L 770M | 14K 35K 35K | 0.20 0.20 0.24”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MiniCheck-FT5 only drops by 0.4% compared to larger drops for other systems, such as 9.2% for SummaC-CV.

    “However, MiniCheck-FT5 only drops by 0.4% compared to larger drops for other systems, such as 9.2% for SummaC-CV.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MiniCheck-FT5 uses 35K training data and costs $0.24 on the 13K LLM-AGGREFACT test set.

    “MiniCheck-RBTA AlignScore 355M MiniCheck-DBTA DeBERTa-L 355M MiniCheck-FT5 Flan-T5-L 770M | 14K 35K 35K | 0.20 0.20 0.24”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the non-supporting document generation step (step 4), 53% of the final documents still supported the claim, and these documents were not included in our constructed data.

    “For the non-supporting document generation step (step 4), 53% of the final documents still supported the claim, and these documents were not included in our constructed data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    MiniCheck-FT5 achieves an average BAcc of 74.7 on the LLM-AGGREFACT test set without threshold tuning.

    “MiniCheck-FT5 69.9”
    • Also stated in: § Your turn: Provided Claim: [CLAIM] · plain
      “85.2 74.7”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    MiniCheck-RBTA uses 14K training data and costs $0.20 on the 13K LLM-AGGREFACT test set.

    “MiniCheck-RBTA AlignScore 355M MiniCheck-DBTA DeBERTa-L 355M MiniCheck-FT5 Flan-T5-L 770M | 14K 35K 35K | 0.20 0.20 0.24”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    In the D2C example, the same claim can be supported by both its directly associated document chunk (chunk 2) and a separate chunk (chunk 1) originating from the same document, which has been divided into three distinct chunks.

    “The same claim (summary sentence) can be supported by both its directly associated document chunk (chunk 2) and a separate chunk (chunk 1) originating from the same document, which has been divided into three distinct chunks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    As the generated supporting documents for a given claim tend to be similar despite adjusting the model temperature, we do not generate multiple supporting documents for c.

    “As the generated supporting documents for a given claim tend to be similar despite adjusting the model temperature, we do not generate multiple supporting documents for c.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In the supporting document generation step (step 3), 5% of the final documents failed the entailment check.

    “In the supporting document generation step (step 3), 5% of the final documents failed the entailment check.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Using paragraph-level segmentation instead of sentence-level segmentation improves overall performance and accelerates inference speed.

    “We find this change not only improves the overall performance but also accelerates inference speed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Training on the synthetic data teaches models to check each fact in a claim and recognize synthesis of information across sentences.

    “Training on this data teaches models to check each fact in the claim and recognize synthesis of information across sentences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is probable that a chunk's summary conveys some information that can be indirectly supported by other chunks in the document, even if those chunks were not used to generate the summary.

    “Given that each chunk D i has an associated summary c i , it is probable that the summary c i conveys some information that can be indirectly supported by other chunks D j within the document, even if D j are not used to generate c i .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Many of the disagreement cases are classic cases of subjectivity in NLI.

    “Many of the disagreement cases are classic cases of subjectivity in NLI (Pavlick and Kwiatkowski, 2019;Chen et al., 2020;Nie et al., 2020b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Pavlick and Kwiatkowski, 2019 source
    • cites Chen et al., 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Nie et al., 2020b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The automatic labels are a bit lower-quality than single-annotator labels on D2C, but close on C2D.

    “These accuracies demonstrate that the automatic labels are a bit lower-quality than single-annotator labels on D2C, but close on C2D.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    DocNLI is a restructure of existing datasets where the length of most training examples cannot fit into the input limit of small models.

    “DocNLI (Yin et al., 2021) is a restructure of existing datasets where the length of most training examples cannot fit into the input limit of small models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yin et al., 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Our benchmark includes instances that evaluate models' ability to reason across multiple sentences, but these datasets do not necessitate reasoning over evidence that is significantly separated or spread across various documents.

    “While our benchmark includes instances that evaluate models' ability to reason across multiple sentences, these datasets do not necessitate reasoning over evidence that is significantly separated or spread across various documents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Annotation of real errors is challenging to scale, and datasets of such errors are largely test-only.

    “Annotation of real errors is challenging to scale; datasets of such errors (including those in LLM-AGGREFACT) are largely test-only.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Important information in a document can be conveyed multiple times in various ways.

    “The rationale behind this is that the important information in a document can be conveyed multiple times in various ways.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    There are two main approaches to verifying sentences against documents.

    “There are two main approaches to verifying sentences against documents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Our models do not reveal their internal decision-making processes, making it challenging to localize errors to particular mismatched spans of a claim or document.

    “Like many other specialized factchecking models, our models do not reveal their internal decision-making processes, making it challenging to localize errors to particular mismatched spans of a claim or document.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Our models are trained exclusively on English data.

    “Our models are trained exclusively on English data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    New data is required to address the challenges of fact-checking on grounding documents.

    “To address these challenges, new data is required.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The D2C method enhances document diversity and realism compared to C2D, reducing distribution shift between synthetic training documents and real test documents.

    “In the D2C method, our objective is to enhance the diversity of documents and ensure that the documents are more realistic than those in C2D, thereby reducing the distribution shift between synthetic documents used during training and real documents at test time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Existing specialized fact-checkers fall short in effectively considering all atomic facts within a claim and struggle with reasoning across multiple sentences.

    “We argue that existing specialized fact-checkers fall short in effectively considering all atomic facts within a claim to be verified and struggle with reasoning across multiple sentences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    We have not systematically assessed how well our model's performance extends to other languages due to the absence of a human-annotated factual consistency evaluation dataset for LLM-generated outputs in non-English languages.

    “Although the backbone model, Flan-T5, is trained on multilingual data, we have not systematically assessed how well our model's performance extends to other languages due to the absence of a human-annotated factual consistency evaluation dataset for LLM-generated outputs in non-English languages.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In retrieve-then-generate and post-hoc grounding settings, evidence is typically retrieved for each claim separately, meaning no document can be shared across claims in a single response, and thus the inference cost is barely reduced.

    “However, in retrieve-then-generate and post-hoc grounding settings, evidence is typically retrieved for each claim separately, meaning no document can be shared across claims in a single response, and thus the inference cost is barely reduced.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    We use a temperature of zero to collect deterministic outputs, which is typical from previous work.

    “We use a temperature of zero to collect deterministic outputs, which is typical from previous work.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    We excluded HALUEVAL and SUMMEDITS from our benchmark since they are synthetic, with errors in summaries generated via instruction prompts that guide the model to intentionally make errors in summaries.

    “We excluded HALUEVAL (Li et al., 2023) and SUMMEDITS (Laban et al., 2023) from our benchmark since they are synthetic, with errors in summaries generated via instruction prompts that guide the model to intentionally make errors in summaries.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Li et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Laban et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Our synthetic data enhances model robustness and performance in the absence of threshold tuning.

    “Our synthetic data enhances model robustness and performance in the absence of threshold tuning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    These filtering steps are crucial for improving the training dataset's quality.

    “These filtering steps are crucial for improving the training dataset's quality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    MINICHECK-RBTA and MINICHECK-DBTA chunk size of approximately 400 tokens results in approximately the same chunk size as in AlignScore, which has a chunk size of 350 tokens using white space splitting.

    “This results in approximately the same chunk size as in AlignScore, which has a chunk size of 350 tokens using white space splitting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Determining the factuality labels of claims requires models to reason over multiple sentences.

    “Determining the factuality labels of claims requires models to reason over multiple sentences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Documents generated from a claim encourage models to pay attention to multiple atomic facts in a sentence.

    “which encourage models to pay attention to multiple atomic facts in a sentence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Humans could potentially search different articles to verify the correctness of those sentences than the ones that models retrieve.

    “However, humans could potentially search different articles to verify the correctness of those sentences than the ones that models retrieve.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Comparing the performance of simplified methods with C2D/D2C helps validate our more sophisticated prompting strategy.

    “Comparing the performance of this with C2D/D2C helps validate our more sophisticated prompting strategy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data

    MiniCheck-FT5 achieves a higher average BAcc than AlignScore on the LLM-AGGREFACT test set without threshold tuning.

    “MiniCheck-FT5 69.9”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These errors are unnatural and do not fit with our goal of detecting true LLM generation errors.

    “These errors are unnatural and do not fit with our goal of detecting true LLM generation errors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The editing method from Laban et al. (2023) is used to construct the SummEdit factual consistency evaluation benchmark.

    “We leverage the editing method from Laban et al. (2023), which is used to construct their SummEdit factual consistency evaluation benchmark.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Laban et al. (2023)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Our synthetic data not only improves overall performance but also enhances the robustness of models across the domains of our benchmark, enabling them to maintain strong performance even without threshold tuning.

    “These results suggest that our synthetic data not only improves overall performance but also enhances the robustness of models across the domains of our benchmark, enabling them to maintain strong performance even without threshold tuning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The correctness of the condition that the atomic fact is supported if and only if the information from both sentences is combined is verified after generation via an entailment check by GPT-4.

    “To ensure the quality of the generation, we verify the correctness of this condition after generation via an entailment check by GPT-4 (Table 20).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Directly performing an entailment check on the (D, c) pair with GPT-4 may introduce many labeling errors, which can negatively impact the performance of the trained models.

    “However, directly performing an entailment check on the (D, c) pair with GPT-4 may introduce many labeling errors, which can negatively impact the performance of the trained models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premiseown data

    The model can generate complete and correct atomic facts most of the time according to human evaluation.

    “which can generate complete and correct atomic facts most of the time according to their human evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    By construction, if all sentences are mentioned in D, then c is supported by D.

    “By construction, if all sentences are mentioned in D, then c is supported by D.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    All sentences s from the generated sentence pairs are mentioned in (and hence are entailed by) the generated document D, verified by using the entailment check by GPT-4.

    “We ensure that all sentences s from the generated sentence pairs are mentioned in (and hence are entailed by) the generated document D by using the entailment check by GPT-4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: GPT-4 can perform well on the simple task of verifying whether sentences s are mentioned in D.
81 of 81

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The statements to be checked consist of sentences, each with associated grounding documents.

    “We assume a collection of statements to be checked consisting of sentences c = [c 1 , . . ., c |c| ].”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Entailment checks can be performed on each sentence on its own, without context.

    “Second, we assume that we can perform our entailment checks on each sentence c i on its own, without context c <i .”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the C2D method, we have access to a set of human-written claim statements.

    “In the C2D method, we assume that we have access to a set of human-written claim statements.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the D2C method, we have access to a set of human-written documents.

    “To achieve this, we assume that we have access to a set of human-written documents to start with.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The generated summary sentences are factually consistent with respect to their corresponding chunks.

    “We assume these generated summary sentences are factually consistent with respect to their corresponding chunks, i.e. (D i , c i , 1) for all i, as each chunk is short and LLMs can almost always generate factual summaries in this setting (Zhang et al., 2024).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Checking each sentence in isolation is necessary for the paper's fact-checking approach.

    “our approach relies on being able to check each sentence in isolation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Coreference and ellipsis may make sentences difficult to ground out of context.

    “phenomena like coreference and ellipsis may make sentences difficult to ground out of context.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The summary sentences generated by GPT-4 for each document chunk are supported by that chunk.

    “corresponding supporting summary sentences {c 1 , c 2 , c 3 } generated by GPT-4.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Contradictions are rare in the benchmark.

    “as contradictions are rare in our benchmark”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    GPT-4 can perform well on the simple task of verifying whether sentences s are mentioned in D.

    “It is important to note that we only verify whether sentences s are mentioned in D, as we believe GPT-4 can perform well on this simple task.”
10 of 10

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large anno- tated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Meng Cao, Yue Dong, and Jackie Cheung. 2022. Hal- lucinated but factual! inspecting the factuality of hallucinations in abstractive summarization. In Pro- ceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3340-3354, Dublin, Ireland. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Shuyang Cao and Lu Wang. 2021. CLIFF: Contrastive learning for improving faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6633-6649, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  4. Jiawei Chen, Hongyu Lin, Xianpei Han, and Le Sun. 2024. Benchmarking large language models in retrieval-augmented generation. In Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Applica- tions of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2024, Fourteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2014, February 20-27, 2024, Van- couver, Canada, pages 17754-17762. AAAI Press. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Tongfei Chen, Zhengping Jiang, Adam Poliak, Keisuke Sakaguchi, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2020. Un- certain natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8772-8779, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  6. Sabrina Chiesurin, Dimitris Dimakopoulos, Marco An- tonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Arash Eshghi, Ioannis Papaioannou, Verena Rieser, and Ioannis Konstas. 2023. The dangers of trusting stochastic parrots: Faithfulness and trust in open-domain conversational question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 947- 959, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  7. Eunsol Choi, Jennimaria Palomaki, Matthew Lamm, Tom Kwiatkowski, Dipanjan Das, and Michael Collins. 2021. Decontextualization: Making sen- tences stand-alone. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:447-461. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Alexander Fabbri, Chien-Sheng Wu, Wenhao Liu, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. QAFactEval: Improved QA- based factual consistency evaluation for summariza- tion. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo- gies, pages 2587-2601, Seattle, United States. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Kryściński, Bryan Mc- Cann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. 2021. SummEval: Re-evaluating Summariza- tion Evaluation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:391-409. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Tobias Falke, Leonardo F. R. Ribeiro, Prasetya Ajie Utama, Ido Dagan, and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Rank- ing generated summaries by correctness: An interest- ing but challenging application for natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2214-2220, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Angela Fan, Yacine Jernite, Ethan Perez, David Grang- ier, Jason Weston, and Michael Auli. 2019. ELI5: Long form question answering. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 3558-3567, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Luyu Gao, Zhuyun Dai, Panupong Pasupat, Anthony Chen, Arun Tejasvi Chaganty, Yicheng Fan, Vincent Zhao, Ni Lao, Hongrae Lee, Da-Cheng Juan, and Kelvin Guu. 2023. RARR: Researching and revising what language models say, using language models. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 16477-16508, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Max Glockner, Ieva Staliūnaitė, James Thorne, Gisela Vallejo, Andreas Vlachos, and Iryna Gurevych. 2024. AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence. Transactions of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 12:1-18. · DOI
  14. Tanya Goyal and Greg Durrett. 2020. Evaluating factu- ality in generation with dependency-level entailment. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3592-3603, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Tanya Goyal and Greg Durrett. 2021. Annotating and modeling fine-grained factuality in summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1449-1462, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Suchin Gururangan, Swabha Swayamdipta, Omer Levy, Roy Schwartz, Samuel Bowman, and Noah A. Smith. 2018. Annotation artifacts in natural language infer- ence data. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 107-112, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Or Honovich, Roee Aharoni, Jonathan Herzig, Hagai Taitelbaum, Doron Kukliansy, Vered Cohen, Thomas Scialom, Idan Szpektor, Avinatan Hassidim, and Yossi Matias. 2022. TRUE: Re-evaluating factual consistency evaluation. In Proceedings of the Second DialDoc Workshop on Document-grounded Dialogue and Conversational Question Answering, pages 161- 175, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alex Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. 2023. Dis- tilling step-by-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes. In Findings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 8003-8017, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Yebowen Hu, Timothy Ganter, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, Franck Dernoncourt, Hassan Foroosh, and Fei Liu. 2023. MeetingBank: A benchmark dataset for meet- ing summarization. In Proceedings of the 61st An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 16409- 16423, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  20. Dandan Huang, Leyang Cui, Sen Yang, Guangsheng Bao, Kun Wang, Jun Xie, and Yue Zhang. 2020. What have we achieved on text summarization? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 446-469, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  21. Sebastian Joseph, Kathryn Kazanas, Keziah Reina, Vish- nesh Ramanathan, Wei Xu, Byron Wallace, and Junyi Jessy Li. 2023. Multilingual simplification of medical texts. In Proceedings of the 2023 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 16662-16692, Singapore. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  22. Ryo Kamoi, Tanya Goyal, Juan Diego Rodriguez, and Greg Durrett. 2023. WiCE: Real-world entailment for claims in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 7561-7583, Singapore. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Wojciech Kryscinski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2020. Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9332-9346, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Philippe Laban, Wojciech Kryscinski, Divyansh Agar- wal, Alexander Fabbri, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq Joty, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2023. SummEdits: Measuring LLM ability at factual reasoning through the lens of summarization. In Proceedings of the 2023 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9662-9676, Singapore. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  25. Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N. Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2022. SummaC: Re-visiting NLI- based models for inconsistency detection in summa- rization. Transactions of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, 10:163-177. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Chuanrong Li, Lin Shengshuo, Zeyu Liu, Xinyi Wu, Xuhui Zhou, and Shane Steinert-Threlkeld. 2020. Linguistically-informed transformations (LIT): A method for automatically generating contrast sets. In Proceedings of the Third BlackboxNLP Workshop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 126-135, Online. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI
  27. Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. HaluEval: A large-scale hal- lucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6449-6464, Singapore. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Yixin Liu, Pengfei Liu, Dragomir Radev, and Graham Neubig. 2022. BRIO: Bringing order to abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2890-2903, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  29. Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric mem- ories. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 9802-9822, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020. On faithfulness and factu- ality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1906-1919, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Nick McKenna, Tianyi Li, Liang Cheng, Mohammad Hosseini, Mark Johnson, and Mark Steedman. 2023. Sources of hallucination by large language models on inference tasks. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2758-2774, Singapore. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Sewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Pang Koh, Mohit Iyyer, Luke Zettle- moyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. FActScore: Fine-grained atomic evaluation of factual precision in long form text generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 12076-12100, Singa- pore. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, Caglar Gulcehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence rnns and beyond. In Proceedings of The 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Don't give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for ex- treme summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 1797-1807, Brussels, Bel- gium. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Yixin Nie, Adina Williams, Emily Dinan, Mohit Bansal, Jason Weston, and Douwe Kiela. 2020a. Adversarial NLI: A new benchmark for natural language under- standing. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4885-4901, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Yixin Nie, Xiang Zhou, and Mohit Bansal. 2020b. What can we learn from collective human opinions on nat- ural language inference data? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9131-9143, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  37. Artidoro Pagnoni, Vidhisha Balachandran, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2021. Understanding factuality in abstrac- tive summarization with FRANK: A benchmark for factuality metrics. In Proceedings of the 2021 Con- ference of the North American Chapter of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies, pages 4812-4829, Online. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Ellie Pavlick and Tom Kwiatkowski. 2019. Inherent disagreements in human textual inferences. Transac- tions of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics, 7:677-694. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Fabio Petroni, Samuel Broscheit, Aleksandra Pik- tus, Patrick Lewis, Gautier Izacard, Lucas Hos- seini, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Maria Lomeli, Timo Schick, Michele Bevilacqua, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Ar- mand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Sebastian Riedel. 2023. Improving Wikipedia verifiability with AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(10):1142-1148. · DOI
  40. Chantal Shaib, Millicent Li, Sebastian Joseph, Iain Marshall, Junyi Jessy Li, and Byron Wallace. 2023. Summarizing, simplifying, and synthesizing medical evidence using GPT-3 (with varying success). In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1387-1407, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  41. Liyan Tang, Tanya Goyal, Alex Fabbri, Philippe La- ban, Jiacheng Xu, Semih Yavuz, Wojciech Kryscin- ski, Justin Rousseau, and Greg Durrett. 2023a. Un- derstanding factual errors in summarization: Errors, summarizers, datasets, error detectors. In Proceed- ings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 11626-11644, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  42. Liyan Tang, Yifan Peng, Yanshan Wang, Ying Ding, Greg Durrett, and Justin Rousseau. 2023b. Less likely brainstorming: Using language models to gen- erate alternative hypotheses. In Findings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 12532-12555, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  43. Liyan Tang, Zhaoyi Sun, Betina Idnay, Jordan G. Nestor, Ali Soroush, Pierre A. Elias, Ziyang Xu, Ying Ding, Greg Durrett, Justin F. Rousseau, Chunhua Weng, and Yifan Peng. 2023c. Evaluating large language models on medical evidence summarization. npj Digital Medicine, 6(1). · DOI · Paper page
  44. Alex Wang, Kyunghyun Cho, and Mike Lewis. 2020. Asking and answering questions to evaluate the fac- tual consistency of summaries. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 5008-5020, Online. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  45. Yixuan Weng, Minjun Zhu, Fei Xia, Bin Li, Shizhu He, Shengping Liu, Bin Sun, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2023. Large language models are better reasoners with self-verification. In Findings of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2550-2575, Singapore. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Xiaoyu Yang and Xiaodan Zhu. 2021. Exploring de- composition for table-based fact verification. In Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics: EMNLP 2021, pages 1045-1052, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  48. Wenpeng Yin, Dragomir Radev, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. DocNLI: A large-scale dataset for document- level natural language inference. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL- IJCNLP 2021, pages 4913-4922, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  49. Yuheng Zha, Yichi Yang, Ruichen Li, and Zhiting Hu. 2023. AlignScore: Evaluating factual consistency with a unified alignment function. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 11328-11348, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Tianyi Zhang, Faisal Ladhak, Esin Durmus, Percy Liang, Kathleen McKeown, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2024. Benchmarking large language models for news summarization. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:39-57. · DOI · Paper page
  51. Wenxuan Zhou, Sheng Zhang, Hoifung Poon, and Muhao Chen. 2023. Context-faithful prompting for large language models. In Findings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14544-14556, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  52. Chenguang Zhu, Yang Liu, Jie Mei, and Michael Zeng. 2021. MediaSum: A large-scale media interview dataset for dialogue summarization. In Proceedings · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tang, L., Laban, P., & Durrett, G.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
8818-8847
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2404.10774
arXiv
2404.10774
OpenAlex
W4404782774
Semantic Scholar
d0489fd7c5ff833e08969341ae6e5fa1d0e6dd2a
Cited by
53
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 1
FWCI
15.43
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2145280, CAREER)
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • Open Philanthropy Project
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
fact-checking, large language models, grounding, evidence verification, synthetic training data, retrieval-augmented generation, factual errors

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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