Long-form factuality in large language models

An LLM agent that decomposes a long response into individual facts and checks each one with iterative Google Search queries annotates factuality more accurately than crowdsourced humans, and for a fraction of the cost.

The system, SAFE, uses gpt-3.5-turbo-0125 plus the Serper Google Search API: it splits a response into self-contained facts, filters irrelevant ones, then runs up to 5 query steps per fact before rating it supported or not. It was checked against the crowdsourced annotations from Min et al. (2023) and used to benchmark 13 models across Gemini, GPT, Claude, and PaLM-2 on LongFact, a GPT-4-generated set of 2,280 prompts over 38 topics.

On 16,011 individual facts SAFE agreed with human labels 72.0% of the time. On 100 randomly sampled disagreement cases, re-annotated by researchers with full internet access as ground truth, SAFE was correct 76% and humans 19%. Cost was $0.19 per response versus $4.00. On 250 LongFact-Objects prompts, GPT-4-Turbo led at 95.0 F1@64 and 66.4 F1@178; PaLM-2-L-IT trailed at 31.1 and 13.2.

The head-to-head is measured, but the ground truth on disagreements was set by the authors themselves, and the human baseline comes from 1 prior dataset of biography prompts. Google Search is the only knowledge source, and the paper notes it may be thin in law and medicine. F1@K also assumes no repeated facts and can be gamed by repetition.

If you evaluate long-form generation, this is a usable substitute for human raters, with the caveat that its ceiling is what search can verify.