Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs
In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities, surpassing those seen in earlier language models. A particularly intriguing application of LLMs is their role as evaluators for texts produced by various generative models. In this study, we delve into the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models. Initially, we introduce an innovative approach for factuality assessment using LLMs. This entails employing a singular LLM for the entirety of the question-answering-based factuality scoring process. Following this, we examine the efficacy of various LLMs in direct factuality scoring, benchmarking them against traditional measures and human annotations. Contrary to initial expectations, our results indicate a lack of significant correlations between factuality metrics and human evaluations, specifically for GPT-4 and PaLM-2. Notable correlations were only observed with GPT-3.5 across two factuality subcategories. These consistent findings across various factual error categories suggest a fundamental limitation in the current LLMs' capability to accurately gauge factuality. This version presents the information more concisely while maintaining the main points and findings of the original text.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
BenchmarkingQuestion AnsweringText GenerationMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
JudgeSense: A Benchmark for Prompt Sensitivity in LLM-as-a-Judge Systems
Large language models are widely adopted as automated evaluation judges, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt rephrasings remains largely unexamined. We conduct a systematic empirical …
Fact or Fiction? Can LLMs be Reliable Annotators for Political Truths?
Political misinformation poses significant challenges to democratic processes, shaping public opinion and trust in media. Manual fact-checking methods face issues of scalability and annotator bias, while machine learning…
ArticlesFact CheckingMisinformationPermutation-Consensus Listwise Judging for Robust Factuality Evaluation
Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used as judges, yet their decisions can change under presentation choices that should be irrelevant. We study one such source of instability: candidate-order sensitivity in lis…
How Long Reasoning Chains Influence LLMs' Judgment of Answer Factuality
Large language models (LLMs) has been widely adopted as a scalable surrogate for human evaluation, yet such judges remain imperfect and susceptible to surface-level biases. One possible reason is that these judges lack s…
Mathematical ReasoningQuestion AnsweringFECT: Factuality Evaluation of Interpretive AI-Generated Claims in Contact Center Conversation Transcripts
Large language models (LLMs) are known to hallucinate, producing natural language outputs that are not grounded in the input, reference materials, or real-world knowledge. In enterprise applications where AI features sup…