Miriam Wanner

Zhengping Jiang, Jingyu Zhang, Nathaniel Weir et al.

Hallucinations pose a challenge to the application of large language models (LLMs) thereby motivating the development of metrics to evaluate factual precision. We observe that popular metrics using the Decompose-Then-Verify framework, such as \FActScore, can be manipulated by adding obvious or repetitive subclaims to artificially inflate scores. This observation motivates our new customizable plug-and-play subclaim selection component called Core, which filters down individual subclaims according to their uniqueness and informativeness. We show that many popular factual precision metrics augmented by Core are substantially more robust on a wide range of knowledge domains. We release an evaluation framework supporting easy and modular use of Core and various decomposition strategies, which we recommend adoption by the community. We also release an expansion of the FActScore biography dataset to facilitate further studies of decomposition-based factual precision evaluation.

Miriam Wanner, Seth Ebner, Zhengping Jiang et al.

As generated text becomes more commonplace, it is increasingly important to evaluate how well-supported such text is by external knowledge sources. Many approaches for evaluating textual support rely on some method for decomposing text into its individual subclaims which are scored against a trusted reference. We investigate how various methods of claim decomposition -- especially LLM-based methods -- affect the result of an evaluation approach such as the recently proposed FActScore, finding that it is sensitive to the decomposition method used. This sensitivity arises because such metrics attribute overall textual support to the model that generated the text even though error can also come from the metric's decomposition step. To measure decomposition quality, we introduce an adaptation of FActScore, which we call DecompScore. We then propose an LLM-based approach to generating decompositions inspired by Bertrand Russell's theory of logical atomism and neo-Davidsonian semantics and demonstrate its improved decomposition quality over previous methods.

Miriam Wanner, Benjamin Van Durme, Mark Dredze

The decompose-then-verify strategy for verification of Large Language Model (LLM) generations decomposes claims that are then independently verified. Decontextualization augments text (claims) to ensure it can be verified outside of the original context, enabling reliable verification. While decomposition and decontextualization have been explored independently, their interactions in a complete system have not been investigated. Their conflicting purposes can create tensions: decomposition isolates atomic facts while decontextualization inserts relevant information. Furthermore, a decontextualized subclaim presents a challenge to the verification step: what part of the augmented text should be verified as it now contains multiple atomic facts? We conduct an evaluation of different decomposition, decontextualization, and verification strategies and find that the choice of strategy matters in the resulting factuality scores. Additionally, we introduce DnDScore, a decontextualization aware verification method which validates subclaims in the context of contextual information.

Jiefu Ou, William Gantt Walden, Kate Sanders et al.

A core part of scientific peer review involves providing expert critiques that directly assess the scientific claims a paper makes. While it is now possible to automatically generate plausible (if generic) reviews, ensuring that these reviews are sound and grounded in the papers' claims remains challenging. To facilitate LLM benchmarking on these challenges, we introduce CLAIMCHECK, an annotated dataset of NeurIPS 2023 and 2024 submissions and reviews mined from OpenReview. CLAIMCHECK is richly annotated by ML experts for weakness statements in the reviews and the paper claims that they dispute, as well as fine-grained labels of the validity, objectivity, and type of the identified weaknesses. We benchmark several LLMs on three claim-centric tasks supported by CLAIMCHECK, requiring models to (1) associate weaknesses with the claims they dispute, (2) predict fine-grained labels for weaknesses and rewrite the weaknesses to enhance their specificity, and (3) verify a paper's claims with grounded reasoning. Our experiments reveal that cutting-edge LLMs, while capable of predicting weakness labels in (2), continue to underperform relative to human experts on all other tasks.

Miriam Wanner, Leif Azzopardi, Paul Thomas et al.

Existing methods for evaluating the factuality of large language model (LLM) responses treat all claims as equally important. This results in misleading evaluations when vital information is missing or incorrect as it receives the same weight as peripheral details, raising the question: how can we reliably detect such differences when there are errors in key information? Current approaches that measure factuality tend to be insensitive to omitted or false key information. To investigate this lack of sensitivity, we construct VITALERRORS, a benchmark of 6,733 queries with minimally altered LLM responses designed to omit or falsify key information. Using this dataset, we demonstrate the insensitivities of existing evaluation metrics to key information errors. To address this gap, we introduce VITAL, a set of metrics that provide greater sensitivity in measuring the factuality of responses by incorporating the relevance and importance of claims with respect to the query. Our analysis demonstrates that VITAL metrics more reliably detect errors in key information than previous methods. Our dataset, metrics, and analysis provide a foundation for more accurate and robust assessment of LLM factuality.

William Walden, Kathryn Ricci, Miriam Wanner et al.

Wikipedia is a critical resource for modern NLP, serving as a rich repository of up-to-date and citation-backed information on a wide variety of subjects. The reliability of Wikipedia -- its groundedness in its cited sources -- is vital to this purpose. This work analyzes both how grounded Wikipedia is and how readily fine-grained grounding evidence can be retrieved. To this end, we introduce PeopleProfiles -- a large-scale, multi-level dataset of claim support annotations on biographical Wikipedia articles. We show that: (1) ~22% of claims in Wikipedia lead sections are unsupported by the article body; (2) ~30% of claims in the article body are unsupported by their publicly accessible sources; and (3) real-world Wikipedia citation practices often differ from documented standards. Finally, we show that complex evidence retrieval remains a challenge -- even for recent reasoning rerankers.