Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with a Unified Alignment Function

About

Many text generation applications require the generated text to be factually consistent with input information. Automatic evaluation of factual consistency is challenging. Previous work has developed various metrics that often depend on specific functions, such as natural language inference (NLI) or question answering (QA), trained on limited data. Those metrics thus can hardly assess diverse factual inconsistencies (e.g., contradictions, hallucinations) that occur in varying inputs/outputs (e.g., sentences, documents) from different tasks. In this paper, we propose AlignScore, a new holistic metric that applies to a variety of factual inconsistency scenarios as above. AlignScore is based on a general function of information alignment between two arbitrary text pieces. Crucially, we develop a unified training framework of the alignment function by integrating a large diversity of data sources, resulting in 4.7M training examples from 7 well-established tasks (NLI, QA, paraphrasing, fact verification, information retrieval, semantic similarity, and summarization). We conduct extensive experiments on large-scale benchmarks including 22 evaluation datasets, where 19 of the datasets were never seen in the alignment training. AlignScore achieves substantial improvement over a wide range of previous metrics. Moreover, AlignScore (355M parameters) matches or even outperforms metrics based on ChatGPT and GPT-4 that are orders of magnitude larger.

Yuheng Zha, Yichi Yang, Ruichen Li, Zhiting Hu• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Factuality DetectionShort-form QA (Average of NQ, PopQA, TriviaQA, SimpleQA) (test)
PR-AUC66.6
60
Factual Consistency EvaluationSummaC
CGS86.4
52
Long-form QA Factuality DetectionLong-form QA benchmark factuality target
PR-AUC10.4
48
Factual Consistency EvaluationQAGS XSUM
Spearman Correlation57.2
39
Data-to-text evaluationSFRES
Spearman Correlation0.037
39
Factual Consistency EvaluationQAGS CNNDM
Spearman Correlation73.9
38
Factual Consistency EvaluationTRUE benchmark
PAWS (AUC-ROC)98.4
37
Factual Consistency EvaluationSummEval
Spearman Correlation46.6
36
Fact CheckingCOVID-Fact
Balanced Acc66.5
32
Factual Consistency EvaluationFRANK CNNDM
Spearman Correlation60.9
30
Showing 10 of 71 rows
...

Other info

Code

Follow for update