Long-form factuality in large language models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18802v4
• Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 03:14:38 GMT
• Title: Long-form factuality in large language models
• Authors: Jerry Wei, Chengrun Yang, Xinying Song, Yifeng Lu, Nathan Hu, Jie Huang, Dustin Tran, Daiyi Peng, Ruibo Liu, Da Huang, Cosmo Du, Quoc V. Le,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) often generate content that contains factual errors when responding to fact-seeking prompts on open-ended topics. We benchmark a model's long-form factuality in open domains, using GPT-4 to generate LongFact. We then propose that LLM agents can be used as automated evaluators for long-form factuality through a method which we call Search-Augmented Factuality Evaluator (SAFE)
• Score: 60.07181269469043
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often generate content that contains factual errors when responding to fact-seeking prompts on open-ended topics. To benchmark a model's long-form factuality in open domains, we first use GPT-4 to generate LongFact, a prompt set comprising thousands of questions spanning 38 topics. We then propose that LLM agents can be used as automated evaluators for long-form factuality through a method which we call Search-Augmented Factuality Evaluator (SAFE). SAFE utilizes an LLM to break down a long-form response into a set of individual facts and to evaluate the accuracy of each fact using a multi-step reasoning process comprising sending search queries to Google Search and determining whether a fact is supported by the search results. Furthermore, we propose extending F1 score as an aggregated metric for long-form factuality. To do so, we balance the percentage of supported facts in a response (precision) with the percentage of provided facts relative to a hyperparameter representing a user's preferred response length (recall). Empirically, we demonstrate that LLM agents can outperform crowdsourced human annotators - on a set of ~16k individual facts, SAFE agrees with crowdsourced human annotators 72% of the time, and on a random subset of 100 disagreement cases, SAFE wins 76% of the time. At the same time, SAFE is more than 20 times cheaper than human annotators. We also benchmark thirteen language models on LongFact across four model families (Gemini, GPT, Claude, and PaLM-2), finding that larger language models generally achieve better long-form factuality. LongFact, SAFE, and all experimental code are available at https://github.com/google-deepmind/long-form-factuality.

Related papers

• FactAlign: Long-form Factuality Alignment of Large Language Models [35.067998820937284]
  Large language models have demonstrated significant potential as the next-generation information access engines. We propose FactAlign, a novel alignment framework designed to enhance the factuality of long-form responses. Our experiments on open-domain prompts and information-seeking questions demonstrate that FactAlign significantly improves the factual accuracy of LLM responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T16:03:13Z)
• VERISCORE: Evaluating the factuality of verifiable claims in long-form text generation [37.16881685930474]
  Existing metrics for evaluating the factuality of long-form text decompose an input text into "atomic claims" and verify each against a knowledge base like Wikipedia. We address this issue with VERISCORE, a metric for diverse long-form generation tasks that contain both verifiable and unverifiable content. We use VERISCORE to evaluate generations from 16 different models across multiple long-form tasks and find that while GPT-4o is the best-performing model overall, open-weight models such as Mixtral-8x22 are closing the gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T15:43:18Z)
• One Thousand and One Pairs: A "novel" challenge for long-context language models [56.60667988954638]
  NoCha is a dataset of 1,001 pairs of true and false claims about 67 fictional books. Our annotators confirm that the largest share of pairs in NoCha require global reasoning over the entire book to verify. On average, models perform much better on pairs that require only sentence-level retrieval vs. global reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T02:03:57Z)
• WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia [59.96425443250666]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs) In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T20:13:42Z)
• Conversational Factor Information Retrieval Model (ConFIRM) [2.855224352436985]
  Conversational Factor Information Retrieval Method (ConFIRM) is a novel approach to fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) for domain-specific retrieval tasks. We demonstrate ConFIRM's effectiveness through a case study in the finance sector, fine-tuning a Llama-2-7b model using personality-aligned data. The resulting model achieved 91% accuracy in classifying financial queries, with an average inference time of 0.61 seconds on an NVIDIA A100 GPU.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-06T12:31:05Z)
• FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation [92.43001160060376]
  We study the factuality of large language models (LLMs) in the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge. We introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a diverse range of question and answer types. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to measure both correctness and hallucination. Motivated by these results, we present FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the performance of an LLM on FreshQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T00:04:12Z)
• L-Eval: Instituting Standardized Evaluation for Long Context Language Models [91.05820785008527]
  We propose L-Eval to institute a more standardized evaluation for long context language models (LCLMs) We build a new evaluation suite containing 20 sub-tasks, 508 long documents, and over 2,000 human-labeled query-response pairs. Results show that popular n-gram matching metrics generally can not correlate well with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T17:59:41Z)
• Statistical Knowledge Assessment for Large Language Models [79.07989821512128]
  Given varying prompts regarding a factoid question, can a large language model (LLM) reliably generate factually correct answers? We propose KaRR, a statistical approach to assess factual knowledge for LLMs. Our results reveal that the knowledge in LLMs with the same backbone architecture adheres to the scaling law, while tuning on instruction-following data sometimes compromises the model's capability to generate factually correct text reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T18:54:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.