Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.00741 v2 pith:BKGPZG6X submitted 2023-10-01 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords factualityllmsevaluationfelmerrorsevaluatorslanguagelarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Assessing factuality of text generated by large language models (LLMs) is an emerging yet crucial research area, aimed at alerting users to potential errors and guiding the development of more reliable LLMs. Nonetheless, the evaluators assessing factuality necessitate suitable evaluation themselves to gauge progress and foster advancements. This direction remains under-explored, resulting in substantial impediments to the progress of factuality evaluators. To mitigate this issue, we introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. In this benchmark, we collect responses generated from LLMs and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Contrary to previous studies that primarily concentrate on the factuality of world knowledge (e.g.~information from Wikipedia), felm focuses on factuality across diverse domains, spanning from world knowledge to math and reasoning. Our annotation is based on text segments, which can help pinpoint specific factual errors. The factuality annotations are further supplemented by predefined error types and reference links that either support or contradict the statement. In our experiments, we investigate the performance of several LLM-based factuality evaluators on felm, including both vanilla LLMs and those augmented with retrieval mechanisms and chain-of-thought processes. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Beyond Facts: Evaluating Intent Hallucination in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper proposes a query-centric evaluation of LLM "intent hallucination" via constraint decomposition, but the headline metric comparison is undermined by a self-referential human evaluation design.

  2. HalluTruthQA-4K: A Fine-Grained Corpus and Annotation Process for Arabic Hallucination Detection and Truth Verification

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HalluTruthQA-4K is an expert-curated Arabic QA corpus of 4,000 instances that combines response-level hallucination labels, exact error spans, explanations, taxonomy, and multiple-choice factual verification.

  3. Learning Auxiliary Tasks Improves Reference-Free Hallucination Detection in Open-Domain Long-Form Generation

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    RATE-FT, a fine-tuning method that adds rationale generation and an auxiliary question-answering task, improves reference-free hallucination detection in long-form generation by about 3 balanced-accuracy points over s...

Pith tools