Hallucination to Truth: A Review of Fact-Checking and Factuality Evaluation in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03860v1
• Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2025 19:20:05 GMT
• Title: Hallucination to Truth: A Review of Fact-Checking and Factuality Evaluation in Large Language Models
• Authors: Subhey Sadi Rahman, Md. Adnanul Islam, Md. Mahbub Alam, Musarrat Zeba, Md. Abdur Rahman, Sadia Sultana Chowa, Mohaimenul Azam Khan Raiaan, Sami Azam,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on vast and diverse internet corpora that often include inaccurate or misleading content.<n>This review systematically analyzes how LLM-generated content is evaluated for factual accuracy.
• Score: 1.0138329337410974
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on vast and diverse internet corpora that often include inaccurate or misleading content. Consequently, LLMs can generate misinformation, making robust fact-checking essential. This review systematically analyzes how LLM-generated content is evaluated for factual accuracy by exploring key challenges such as hallucinations, dataset limitations, and the reliability of evaluation metrics. The review emphasizes the need for strong fact-checking frameworks that integrate advanced prompting strategies, domain-specific fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods. It proposes five research questions that guide the analysis of the recent literature from 2020 to 2025, focusing on evaluation methods and mitigation techniques. The review also discusses the role of instruction tuning, multi-agent reasoning, and external knowledge access via RAG frameworks. Key findings highlight the limitations of current metrics, the value of grounding outputs with validated external evidence, and the importance of domain-specific customization to improve factual consistency. Overall, the review underlines the importance of building LLMs that are not only accurate and explainable but also tailored for domain-specific fact-checking. These insights contribute to the advancement of research toward more trustworthy and context-aware language models.

Related papers

• FACT-AUDIT: An Adaptive Multi-Agent Framework for Dynamic Fact-Checking Evaluation of Large Language Models [79.41859481668618]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the fact-checking studies.<n>Existing automated fact-checking evaluation methods rely on static datasets and classification metrics.<n>We introduce FACT-AUDIT, an agent-driven framework that adaptively and dynamically assesses LLMs' fact-checking capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T07:44:22Z)
• Decoding AI Judgment: How LLMs Assess News Credibility and Bias [33.7054351451505]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in that involve evaluative processes.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC)--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance? [1.3810901729134184]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at standardized tests while failing to demonstrate genuine language understanding and adaptability.<n>Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum.<n>We lay the groundwork for new evaluation methods that resist manipulation, minimize data contamination, and assess domain-specific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T20:49:21Z)
• SelfPrompt: Autonomously Evaluating LLM Robustness via Domain-Constrained Knowledge Guidelines and Refined Adversarial Prompts [0.6291443816903801]
  This paper introduces a novel framework designed to autonomously evaluate the robustness of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method generates descriptive sentences from domain-constrained knowledge graph triplets to formulate adversarial prompts.<n>This self-evaluation mechanism allows the LLM to evaluate its robustness without the need for external benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-01T10:58:53Z)
• Truth or Mirage? Towards End-to-End Factuality Evaluation with LLM-Oasis [78.07225438556203]
  We introduce LLM-Oasis, the largest resource for training end-to-end factuality evaluators.<n>It is constructed by extracting claims from Wikipedia, falsifying a subset of these claims, and generating pairs of factual and unfactual texts.<n>We then rely on human annotators to both validate the quality of our dataset and to create a gold standard test set for factuality evaluation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T12:21:15Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Belief Revision: The Adaptability of Large Language Models Reasoning [63.0281286287648]
  We introduce Belief-R, a new dataset designed to test LMs' belief revision ability when presented with new evidence. Inspired by how humans suppress prior inferences, this task assesses LMs within the newly proposed delta reasoning framework. We evaluate $sim$30 LMs across diverse prompting strategies and found that LMs generally struggle to appropriately revise their beliefs in response to new information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T09:09:36Z)
• LLM In-Context Recall is Prompt Dependent [0.0]
  A model's ability to do this significantly influences its practical efficacy and dependability in real-world applications. This study demonstrates that an LLM's recall capability is not only contingent upon the prompt's content but also may be compromised by biases in its training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-13T01:13:59Z)
• TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness [58.721012475577716]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:12:14Z)
• FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
  We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)

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.