Paper · arXiv 2305.14540
LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond
Philippe Laban, Wojciech Kryściński, Divyansh Agarwal, Alexander R. Fabbri, Caiming Xiong, Shafiq Joty, Chien-Sheng Wu
A new benchmark called SummEdits shows that most large language models struggle to detect factual inconsistencies effectively, highlighting gaps in their reasoning abilities.
Abstract
With the recent appearance of LLMs in practical settings, having methods that can effectively detect factual inconsistencies is crucial to reduce the propagation of misinformation and improve trust in model outputs. When testing on existing factual consistency benchmarks, we find that a few large language models (LLMs) perform competitively on classification benchmarks for factual inconsistency detection compared to traditional non-LLM methods. However, a closer analysis reveals that most LLMs fail on more complex formulations of the task and exposes issues with existing evaluation benchmarks, affecting evaluation precision. To address this, we propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. This new benchmark is 20 times more cost-effective per sample than previous benchmarks and highly reproducible, as we estimate inter-annotator agreement at about 0.9. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8\% below estimated human performance, highlighting the gaps in LLMs' ability to reason about facts and detect inconsistencies when they occur.