The rapid adoption of language models (LMs) across diverse applications has raised concerns about their factuality, i.e., their consistency with real-world facts. We first present VERIFY (Verification and Evidence RetrIeval for FactualitY evaluation), a pipeline to evaluate LMs' factuality in real-world user interactions. VERIFY considers the verifiability of LM-generated content and categorizes content units as supported, unsupported, or undecidable based on Web-retrieved evidence. Importantly, factuality judgment by VERIFY correlates better with human evaluations than existing methods. Using VERIFY, we identify "hallucination prompts" across diverse topics, i.e., those eliciting the highest rates of incorrect (unsupported) and inconclusive (undecidable) LM responses. These prompts form FACTBENCH, a dataset of 1K prompts across 150 fine-grained topics. Our dataset captures emerging factuality challenges in real-world LM interactions and can be regularly updated with new prompts. We benchmark widely-used LMs from GPT, Gemini, and Llama families on FACTBENCH, yielding the following key findings: (i) Proprietary models exhibit better factuality, with decreased performance from Easy to Hard hallucination prompts. (ii) Llama3.1-405B-Instruct shows comparable or lower factual precision than Llama3.1-70B-Instruct across all evaluation methods due to its higher subjectivity that leads to more content labeled as undecidable. (iii) Gemini1.5-Pro shows a significantly higher refusal rate, with over-refusal in 25% of cases.
View on arXiv