HackerPapers

arXiv:2305.14251cs.CL

FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation

Sewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Pang Wei Koh, Mohit Iyyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, Hannaneh Hajishirzi

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Evaluating the factuality of long-form text generated by large language models (LMs) is non-trivial because (1) generations often contain a mixture of supported and unsupported pieces of information, making binary judgments of quality inadequate, and (2) human evaluation is time-consuming and costly. In this paper, we introduce FACTSCORE, a new evaluation that breaks a generation into a series of atomic facts and computes the percentage of atomic facts supported by a reliable knowledge source. We conduct an extensive human evaluation to obtain FACTSCOREs of people biographies generated by several state-of-the-art commercial LMs -- InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and the retrieval-augmented PerplexityAI -- and report new analysis demonstrating the need for such a fine-grained score (e.g., ChatGPT only achieves 58%). Since human evaluation is costly, we also introduce an automated model that estimates FACTSCORE using retrieval and a strong language model, with less than a 2% error rate. Finally, we use this automated metric to evaluate 6,500 generations from a new set of 13 recent LMs that would have cost $26K if evaluated by humans, with various findings: GPT-4 and ChatGPT are more factual than public models, and Vicuna and Alpaca are some of the best public models. FACTSCORE is available for public use via `pip install factscore`.

arXiv comments
25 pages; 7 figures. Published as a main conference paper at EMNLP 2023. Code available at https://github.com/shmsw25/FActScore
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.LGMachine Learning

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Apr 2024 to Apr 2024. Found in 1 HN submission from Feb 2024 to Feb 2024. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • Looks like a slight modification of FActScore [1], but instead of using Wikipedia as a verification source, they use Google Search. They also claim to include a wider range of topics. That said, FActScore allows you to use whatever knowledge source and topics you want [2]. [1]…

      nsagentView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

  • How does one detect hallucinations?

    Hallucinations are an interesting artifact of LLMs where the model tends to make up facts or generate outputs that are not factually correct. There are two broad approaches for detecting hallucinations: 1. Verify the correctness of the response against world knowledge (via Google/Bing search) 2. Verify the groundedness of the response against the information present in the retrieved context The 2nd approach is more interesting and useful as the majority of LLM applications have an RAG…

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.