CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 68Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

Factuality Enhanced Language Models for Open-Ended Text Generation

Open access
Lee, Nayeon, Ping, Wei, Xu, Peng, Patwary, Mostofa, Fung, Pascale, Shoeybi, Mohammad, Catanzaro, Bryan·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2206.04624arXiv 2206.04624
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Pretrained language models (LMs) are susceptible to generate text with nonfactual information. In this work, we measure and improve the factual accuracy of large-scale LMs for open-ended text generation. We design the FactualityPrompts test set and metrics to measure the factuality of LM generations. Based on that, we study the factual accuracy of LMs with parameter sizes ranging from 126M to 530B. Interestingly, we find that larger LMs are more factual than smaller ones, although a previous study suggests that larger LMs can be less truthful in terms of misconceptions. In addition, popular sampling algorithms (e.g., top-p) in open-ended text generation can harm the factuality due to the ''uniform randomness'' introduced at every sampling step. We propose the factual-nucleus sampling algorithm that dynamically adapts the randomness to improve the factuality of generation while maintaining quality. Furthermore, we analyze the inefficiencies of the standard training method in learning correct associations between entities from factual text corpus (e.g., Wikipedia). We propose a factuality-enhanced training method that uses TopicPrefix for better awareness of facts and sentence completion as the training objective, which can vastly reduce the factual errors. We release our code and FactualityPrompts benchmark at: https://github.com/nayeon7lee/FactualityPrompt.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2206.04624

Cites

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?

  • Mitigating hallucinations can be achieved through ensuring factuality in the pre-training corpus.

    “One strategy is ensuring the factuality in the pre-training corpus [152, 153, 154].”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [154]

    The Introduction (p. 2) describes training methods that use fact-rich text to improve factual accuracy, supporting the general strategy. But §6.3 (p. 9) finds that continued training on strictly factual text alone hardly improves generation factuality; the reported improvement uses additional topic-prefix preprocessing. The paper therefore does not support factuality of the corpus alone as sufficient to mitigate hallucinations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing evaluation metrics fail to adequately assess factual consistency.

    “Existing evaluation metrics fail to adequately assess factual consistency and lack interpretability, making diagnosing and mitigating errors difficult.”

    From AlignCheck: a Semantic Open-Domain Metric for Factual Consistency Assessment (2025) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 2022

    Section 3 (p. 3) says factuality evaluation of open-ended generation is challenging because ground-truth references are lacking. Section 3.4 (p. 5) says named-entity and entailment metrics had not been used for that task. These passages support an evaluation gap, but do not establish the broader claim that existing metrics fail to assess factual consistency adequately. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Randomness from sampling-based decoding, especially near the end of sentences, can lead to hallucination.

    “Based on the observation that the 'randomness' from sampling-based decoding, especially near the end of sentences, can lead to hallucination, [136] propose to iteratively reduce the 'randomness' through time.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [136]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 68

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. [2][2] Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. JMLR , 2019. -
  2. [3][3] Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In NeurIPS , 2020. -
  3. [4][4] Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, et al. Using DeepSpeed and Megatron to train Megatron-Turing NLG 530B, a large-scale generative language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11990 , 2022. - · arXiv
  4. [5][5] Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In ACL , 2016. -
  5. [6][6] Jack W Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, et al. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446 , 2021. - · arXiv
  6. [7][7] Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, et al. WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332 , 2021. - · arXiv
  7. [8][8] Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068 , 2022. - · arXiv
  8. [9][9] Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Hannah Rashkin, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, Franziska Roesner, and Yejin Choi. Defending against neural fake news. In NeurIPS , 2019. -
  9. [10][10] Romal Thoppilan, Daniel De Freitas, Jamie Hall, Noam Shazeer, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Heng-Tze Cheng, Alicia Jin, Taylor Bos, Leslie Baker, Yu Du, et al. LaMDA: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239 , 2022. - · arXiv
  10. [11][11] Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03629 , 2022. - · arXiv
  11. [12][12] Wojciech Kry´ sci´ nski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In EMNLP , 2019. -
  12. [13][13] Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In ACL , 2020. -
  13. [14][14] Esin Durmus, He He, and Mona Diab. FEQA: A question answering evaluation framework for faithfulness assessment in abstractive summarization. In ACL , 2020. -
  14. [15][15] Feng Nan, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Henghui Zhu, Patrick Ng, Kathleen McKeown, Ramesh Nallapati, Dejiao Zhang, Zhiguo Wang, Andrew O Arnold, and Bing Xiang. Improving factual consistency of abstractive summarization via question answering. In ACL-IJCNLP , 2021. -
  15. [16][16] Jun Yin, Xin Jiang, Zhengdong Lu, Lifeng Shang, Hang Li, and Xiaoming Li. Neural generative question answering. In IJCAI , 2016. -
  16. [17][17] Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08910 , 2020. - · arXiv
  17. [18][18] Dan Su, Xiaoguang Li, Jindi Zhang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and Pascale Fung. Read before generate! faithful long form question answering with machine reading. In Findings in ACL , 2022. -
  18. [19][19] Amit Moryossef, Yoav Goldberg, and Ido Dagan. Step-by-step: Separating planning from realization in neural data-to-text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03396 , 2019. - · arXiv
  19. [20][20] Tianyu Liu, Xin Zheng, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. Towards faithfulness in open domain table-to-text generation from an entity-centric view. In AAAI , 2021. -
  20. [21][21] Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Zaitang Li, Zhiting Hu, Qingyun Wang, Heng Ji, and Meng Jiang. A survey of knowledge-enhanced text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04389 , 2020. - · arXiv
  21. [22][22] Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Dmytro Okhonko, Samuel Broscheit, Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Barlas O˘ guz, Edouard Grave, Wen-tau Yih, et al. The web is your oyster-knowledgeintensive nlp against a very large web corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09924 , 2021. - · arXiv
  22. [23][23] Peter West, Chris Quirk, Michel Galley, and Yejin Choi. Probing factually grounded content transfer with factual ablation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10133 , 2022. - · arXiv
  23. [24][24] Sungjin Ahn, Heeyoul Choi, Tanel Pärnamaa, and Yoshua Bengio. A neural knowledge language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.00318 , 2016. - · arXiv
  24. [25][25] Robert L Logan IV, Nelson F Liu, Matthew E Peters, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. Barack's wife hillary: Using knowledge-graphs for fact-aware language modeling. In ACL , 2019. -
  25. [26][26] Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04426 , 2021. - · arXiv
  26. [27][27] Fabio Petroni, Aleksandra Piktus, Angela Fan, Patrick Lewis, Majid Yazdani, Nicola De Cao, James Thorne, Yacine Jernite, Vladimir Karpukhin, Jean Maillard, et al. Kilt: a benchmark for knowledge intensive language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.02252 , 2020. - · arXiv
  27. [28][28] Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. Realm: Retrievalaugmented language model pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08909 , 2020. - · arXiv
  28. [29][29] Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In ICLR , 2020. -
  29. [30][30] Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovi´ c, Swabha Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A Smith. Don't stop pretraining: adapt language models to domains and tasks. In ACL , 2020. -
  30. [31][31] Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In ACL , 2022. -
  31. [32][32] David R Krathwohl. A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice , 41(4):212-218, 2002. -
  32. [33][33] Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. Language models as knowledge bases? In EMNLP , 2019. -
  33. [34][34] Carlos Aspillaga, Marcelo Mendoza, and Alvaro Soto. Inspecting the concept knowledge graph encoded by modern language models. In Findings of ACL , 2021. -
  34. [35][35] Xuhui Zhou, Yue Zhang, Leyang Cui, and Dandan Huang. Evaluating commonsense in pre-trained language models. In AAAI , 2020. -
  35. [36][36] Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Jun Araki, and Graham Neubig. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2020. -
  36. [37][37] Zexuan Zhong, Dan Friedman, and Danqi Chen. Factual probing is [mask]: Learning vs. learning to recall. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05240 , 2021. - · arXiv
  37. [38][38] Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 9:1012-1031, 2021. -
  38. [39][39] Nicola De Cao, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. Editing factual knowledge in language models. In EMNLP , 2021. -
  39. [40][40] Joel Jang, Seonghyeon Ye, Sohee Yang, Joongbo Shin, Janghoon Han, Gyeonghun Kim, Stanley Jungkyu Choi, and Minjoon Seo. Towards continual knowledge learning of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03215 , 2021. - · arXiv
  40. [41][41] Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and editing factual knowledge in GPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05262 , 2022. - · arXiv
  41. [42][42] Ziqiang Cao, Furu Wei, Wenjie Li, and Sujian Li. Faithful to the original: Fact aware neural abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2018. -
  42. [43][43] Yue Dong, Shuohang Wang, Zhe Gan, Yu Cheng, Jackie Chi Kit Cheung, and Jingjing Liu. Multi-fact correction in abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 9320-9331, 2020. -
  43. [44][44] Luyang Huang, Lingfei Wu, and Lu Wang. Knowledge graph-augmented abstractive summarization with semantic-driven cloze reward. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2020. -
  44. [45][45] Yichong Huang, Xiachong Feng, Xiaocheng Feng, and Bing Qin. The factual inconsistency problem in abstractive text summarization: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.14839 , 2021. - · arXiv
  45. [46][46] Shuyang Cao and Lu Wang. 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, 2021. -
  46. [47][47] Chenguang Zhu, William Hinthorn, Ruochen Xu, Qingkai Zeng, Michael Zeng, Xuedong Huang, and Meng Jiang. Enhancing factual consistency of abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 718-733, 2021. -
  47. [48][48] Sihao Chen, Fan Zhang, Kazoo Sone, and Dan Roth. Improving faithfulness in abstractive summarization with contrast candidate generation and selection. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 5935-5941, 2021. -
  48. [49][49] Sam Wiseman, Stuart Shieber, and Alexander Rush. Challenges in data-to-document generation. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 2253-2263. ACL, 2017. -
  49. [50][50] Feng Nie, Jin-Ge Yao, Jinpeng Wang, Rong Pan, and Chin-Yew Lin. A simple recipe towards reducing hallucination in neural surface realisation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 2673-2679. ACL, 2019. -
  50. [51][51] Yixuan Su, David Vandyke, Sihui Wang, Yimai Fang, and Nigel Collier. Plan-then-generate: Controlled data-to-text generation via planning. Findings of EMNLP , 2021. -
  51. [52][52] Peng Wang, Junyang Lin, An Yang, Chang Zhou, Yichang Zhang, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. Sketch and refine: Towards faithful and informative table-to-text generation. ACL , 2021. -
  52. [53][53] Clément Rebuffel, Marco Roberti, Laure Soulier, Geoffrey Scoutheeten, Rossella Cancelliere, and Patrick Gallinari. Controlling hallucinations at word level in data-to-text generation. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , pages 318-354, 2022. -
  53. [54][54] Lei Shen, Haolan Zhan, Xin Shen, Hongshen Chen, Xiaofang Zhao, and Xiaodan Zhu. Identifying untrustworthy samples: Data filtering for open-domain dialogues with bayesian optimization. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management , pages 1598-1608, 2021. -
  54. [55][55] Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021 . ACL, 2021. -
  55. [56][56] Hannah Rashkin, David Reitter, Gaurav Singh Tomar, and Dipanjan Das. Increasing faithfulness in knowledge-grounded dialogue with controllable features. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing , pages 704-718. ACL, 2021. -
  56. [57][57] Zeqiu Wu, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Yizhe Zhang, Xiang Gao, Chris Quirk, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Jianfeng Gao, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Mari Ostendorf, et al. A controllable model of grounded response generation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 14085-14093, 2021. -
  57. [58][58] Nouha Dziri, Andrea Madotto, Osmar Zaiane, and Avishek Joey Bose. Neural path hunter: Reducing hallucination in dialogue systems via path grounding. EMNLP , 2021. -
  58. [59][59] Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155 , 2022. - · arXiv
  59. [60][60] Krishna Pillutla, Swabha Swayamdipta, Rowan Zellers, John Thickstun, Sean Welleck, Yejin Choi, and Zaid Harchaoui. MAUVE: Measuring the gap between neural text and human text using divergence frontiers. In NeurIPS , 2021. -
  60. [61][61] Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A Smith. Realtoxicityprompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In Findings in EMNLP , 2020. -
  61. [62][62] Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 , 2019. - · arXiv
  62. [63][63] Ben Goodrich, Vinay Rao, Peter J Liu, and Mohammad Saleh. Assessing the factual accuracy of generated text. In ACM SIGKDD , 2019. -
  63. [64][64] Feng Nan, Ramesh Nallapati, Zhiguo Wang, Cicero Nogueira dos Santos, Henghui Zhu, Dejiao Zhang, Kathleen McKeown, and Bing Xiang. Entity-level factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In EACL , 2021. -
  64. [65][65] Bill MacCartney and Christopher D. Manning. Modeling semantic containment and exclusion in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008) , pages 521-528, Manchester, UK, August 2008. Coling 2008 Organizing Committee. URL https://aclanthology.org/C08-1066 . -
  65. [66][66] Tobias Falke, Leonardo FR Ribeiro, Prasetya Ajie Utama, Ido Dagan, and Iryna Gurevych. Ranking generated summaries by correctness: An interesting but challenging application for natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 2214-2220, 2019. -
  66. [67][67] Ondˇ rej Dušek and Zdenˇ ek Kasner. Evaluating semantic accuracy of data-to-text generation with natural language inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.10819 , 2020. - · arXiv
  67. [68][68] Nouha Dziri, Hannah Rashkin, Tal Linzen, and David Reitter. Evaluating groundedness in dialogue systems: The begin benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.00071 , 2021. - · arXiv
  68. [69][69] Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , 2019. - · arXiv
  69. [70][70] Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. In NAACL , 2018. -
  70. [71][71] Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. In NAACL , 2016. -
  71. [72][72] Zhihong Shao, Minlie Huang, Jiangtao Wen, Wenfei Xu, and Xiaoyan Zhu. Long and diverse text generation with planning-based hierarchical variational model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06605 , 2019. - · arXiv
  72. [73][73] Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 , 2018. - · arXiv
  73. [74][74] Boxin Wang, Wei Ping, Chaowei Xiao, Peng Xu, Mostofa Patwary, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bo Li, Anima Anandkumar, and Bryan Catanzaro. Exploring the limits of domain-adaptive training for detoxifying large-scale language models. In NeurIPS , 2022. -
  74. [75][75] Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Nikhil Kandpal, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing nlp. In EMNLP , 2019. -
  75. [76][76] Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461 , 2019. - · arXiv
  76. [77][77] Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, Raul Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catanzaro. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053 , 2019. - · arXiv
  77. [78][78] James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and verification. In NAACL , 2018.

Authors
Lee, N., Ping, W., Xu, P., Patwary, M., Fung, P., Shoeybi, M., & Catanzaro, B.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
34586-34599
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2206.04624
arXiv
2206.04624
OpenAlex
W7133223610
Cited by
68
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 1
FWCI
8.71
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
factuality, factual consistency, open-ended text generation, large language models, factual hallucination, fact-checking

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