PreprintCited by 8Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMisinformation and Its Impacts

Generating benchmarks for factuality evaluation of language models

Open access
Muhlgay, Dor, Ram, Ori, Magar, Inbal, Levine, Yoav, Ratner, Nir, Belinkov, Yonatan, Abend, Omri, Leyton-Brown, Kevin +2 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Before deploying a language model (LM) within a given domain, it is important to measure its tendency to generate factually incorrect information in that domain. Existing methods for factuality evaluation of LLM generation focus on facts sampled from the LM itself, and thus do not control the set of evaluated facts and might under-represent domain specific or rare facts. We propose FACTOR: Factual Assessment via Corpus TransfORmation, a scalable approach for evaluating LM factuality. FACTOR automatically transforms a factual corpus of interest into a benchmark evaluating an LM's propensity to generate true facts from the corpus vs. similar but incorrect statements. We use our framework to create three benchmarks: Wiki-FACTOR, News-FACTOR and Expert-FACTOR. We show that: (i) our benchmark scores increase with model size and improve when the LM is augmented with retrieval; (ii) benchmark score and perplexity do not always agree on model ranking; (iii) when perplexity and benchmark score disagree, the latter better reflects factuality in open-ended generation, as measured by human annotators. We make our data and code publicly available in https://github.com/AI21Labs/factor.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2307.06908

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In-Context RALM is able to improve the factuality of large LMs.

    “A recent work by Muhlgay et al. (2023) demonstrates that In-Context RALM is indeed able to improve the factuality of large LMs.”

    From In-Context Retrieval-Augmented Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Muhlgay et al. (2023)

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 8

Authors
Muhlgay, D., Ram, O., Magar, I., Levine, Y., Ratner, N., Belinkov, Y., Abend, O., Leyton-Brown, K., Shashua, A., & Shoham, Y.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4384392932
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
factuality evaluation, large language models, benchmark generation, factual hallucination, retrieval-augmented generation, perplexity, open-ended generation

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