Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers
Open accessAbstract
The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for mechanisms to verify the factual accuracy of their outputs. In this work, we present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of LLM-generated responses, which encompasses a multi-stage annotation scheme designed to yield detailed labels concerning the verifiability and factual inconsistencies found in LLM outputs. We further construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document, aiming to facilitate the evaluation of automatic fact-checking systems. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity.ai are struggling to identify false claims, with the best F1=0.63 by this annotation solution based on GPT-4. Annotation tool, benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/yuxiaw/Factcheck-GPT.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
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.”
From MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents (2024) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2023
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 measuredGao 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.”
From MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents (2024) · cites this paper as Wang et al. (2023)
Decomposing a piece of long-form text into shorter sentences or search queries for factuality evaluation is commonly implemented in previous works.
“Decomposing a piece of long-form text into shorter sentences or search queries for factuality evaluation is commonly implemented in previous works (Kamoi et al., 2023; Gao et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Min et al., 2023; Chern et al., 2023; Wanner et al., 2024; Wei et al., 2024; Guan et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2024).”
From VeriScore: Evaluating the factuality of verifiable claims in long-form text generation (2024) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2023
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.”
From MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents (2024) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2023
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
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Li- oma, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2022. Fact Checking with Insufficient Evidence. Transactions of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, 10:746-763. · DOI
- Isabelle Augenstein. 2021. Towards Explainable Fact Checking. Dr. Scient. thesis, University of Copen- hagen, Faculty of Science.
- Oscar Barrera, Sergei Guriev, Emeric Henry, and Ekate- rina Zhuravskaya. 2020. Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics. Journal of public economics, 182:104123.
- Shiqi Chen, Yiran Zhao, Jinghan Zhang, I-Chun Chern, Siyang Gao, Pengfei Liu, and Junxian He. 2023. Felm: Benchmarking factuality evaluation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00741. · arXiv
- Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Ja- son Weston. 2023. Chain-of-verification reduces hal- lucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495. · arXiv
- Thomas Diggelmann, Jordan L. Boyd-Graber, Jan- nis Bulian, Massimiliano Ciaramita, and Markus Leippold. 2020. CLIMATE-FEVER: A dataset for verification of real-world climate claims. CoRR, abs/2012.00614. · arXiv
- Luyu Gao, Zhuyun Dai, Panupong Pasupat, Anthony Chen, Arun Tejasvi Chaganty, Yicheng Fan, Vin- cent Y Zhao, Ni Lao, Hongrae Lee, Da-Cheng Juan, et al. 2022. Attributed text generation via post-hoc research and revision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08726. · arXiv
- Mor Geva, Daniel Khashabi, Elad Segal, Tushar Khot, Dan Roth, and Jonathan Berant. 2021. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:346- 361.
- Tianyu Liu, Xin Zheng, Baobao Chang, and Zhifang Sui. 2021. Towards faithfulness in open domain table- to-text generation from an entity-centric view. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on In- novative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Ad- vances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Vir- tual Event, February 2-9, 2021, pages 13415-13423. AAAI Press.
- OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. ArXiv, abs/2303.08774. · arXiv
- Nicolas Pröllochs. 2022. Community-based fact- checking on twitter's birdwatch platform. In Pro- ceedings of the Sixteenth International AAAI Confer- ence on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2022, At- lanta, Georgia, USA, June 6-9, 2022, pages 794-805. AAAI Press.
- Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.
- Tu Vu, Mohit Iyyer, Xuezhi Wang, Noah Constant, Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Chris Tar, Yun-Hsuan Sung, Denny Zhou, Quoc Le, et al. 2023. Freshllms: Refreshing large language models with search engine augmenta- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03214. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents
Tang, L., Laban, P., & Durrett, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10774 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Long-form factuality in large language models
Wei, J., Yang, C., Song, X., Lu, Y., Hu, N., Huang, J., Tran, D., Peng, D., Liu, R., Huang, D., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.18802 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification Methods for Large Language Models with LM-Polygraph
Vashurin, R., Fadeeva, E., Vazhentsev, A., Rvanova, L., Vasilev, D., Tsvigun, A., Petrakov, S., Xing, R., Sadallah, A., Grishchenkov, K., et al. (2025) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00737 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationVeriScore: Evaluating the factuality of verifiable claims in long-form text generation
Song, Y., Kim, Y., & Iyyer, M. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.552 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Kim, S., Jeong, S., & Kim, H. (2024) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112608 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Creating Frameworks and Datasets at the Intersection of AI Safety and Elections
Dmonte, A., Wang, Y., Nakov, P., Li, H., Han, X., Zampieri, M., Lybarger, K., Albanese, M., & Baldwin, T. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-89853-2_9
Self-citation
- Authors
- Wang, Y., Reddy, R. G., Mujahid, Z. M., Arora, A., Rubashevskii, A., Geng, J., Afzal, O. M., Pan, L., Borenstein, N., Pillai, A., Augenstein, I., Gurevych, I., & Nakov, P.
- Affiliations
- Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (AE)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology (RU)
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2311.09000
- OpenAlex
- W4388787285
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- automatic fact-checking, large language models, LLM-generated text, GPT-4
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
