The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for mechanisms to verify the fac- tual accuracy of their outputs. Difficulties lie in assessing the factuality of free-form responses in open domains. Also, different pa- pers use disparate evaluation benchmarks and measurements, which renders them hard to compare and hampers future progress. To mitigate these issues, we propose OpenFactCheck, a unified framework for building customized automatic fact-checking systems, benchmarking their accuracy, evaluating factuality of LLMs, and verifying claims in a document. OpenFactCheck consists of three modules: (i) CUSTCHECKER allows users to easily customize an automatic fact-checker and verify the factual correctness of documents and claims, (ii) LLMEVAL, a unified evaluation framework assesses LLM’s factuality ability from various perspectives fairly, and (iii) CHECKEREVAL is an extensible solution for gauging the reliability of automatic fact-checkers’ verification results using human-annotated datasets. Data and code are publicly available at https: //github.com/yuxiaw/openfactcheck.

Fact-checking long-form text is challenging, and it is therefore common practice to break it down into multiple atomic claims. The typical approach to fact-checking these atomic claims involves retrieving a fixed number of pieces of evidence, followed by a verification step. However, this method is usually not cost-effective, as it underutilizes the verification model’s internal knowledge of the claim and fails to replicate the iterative reasoning process in human search strategies. To address these limitations, we propose FIRE, a novel agent-based framework that integrates evidence retrieval and claim verification in an iterative manner. Specifically, FIRE employs a unified mechanism to decide whether to provide a final answer or generate a subsequent search query, based on its confidence in the current judgment. We compare FIRE with other strong fact-checking frameworks and find that it achieves slightly better performance while reducing large language model (LLM) costs by an average of 7.6 times and search costs by 16.5 times. These results indicate that FIRE holds promise for application in large-scale fact-checking operations.

The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for automatic tools to check the factual accuracy of their outputs, as LLMs often hallucinate. This is difficult as it requires assessing the factuality of free-form open-domain responses. While there has been a lot of research on this topic, different papers use different evaluation benchmarks and measures,which makes them hard to compare and hampers future progress. To mitigate these issues, we developed OpenFactCheck, a unified framework, with three modules: (i) RESPONSEEVAL, which allows users to easily customize an automatic fact-checking system and to assess the factuality of all claims in an input document using that system, (ii) LLMEVAL, which assesses the overall factuality of an LLM, and (iii) CHECKEREVAL, a module to evaluate automatic fact-checking systems. OpenFactCheck is open-sourced (https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/openfactcheck) and publicly released as a Python library (https://pypi.org/project/openfactcheck/) and also as a web service (http://app.openfactcheck.com). A video describing the system is available at https://youtu.be/-i9VKL0HleI.

The ease of access to large language models (LLMs) has enabled a widespread of machine-generated texts, and now it is often hard to tell whether a piece of text was human-written or machine-generated. This raises concerns about potential misuse, particularly within educational and academic domains. Thus, it is important to develop practical systems that can automate the process. Here, we present one such system, LLM-DetectAIve, designed for fine-grained detection. Unlike most previous work on machine-generated text detection, which focused on binary classification, LLM-DetectAIve supports four categories: (i) human-written, (ii) machine-generated, (iii) machine-written, then machine-humanized, and (iv) human-written, then machine-polished. Category (iii) aims to detect attempts to obfuscate the fact that a text was machine-generated, while category (iv) looks for cases where the LLM was used to polish a human-written text, which is typically acceptable in academic writing, but not in education. Our experiments show that LLM-DetectAIve can effectively identify the above four categories, which makes it a potentially useful tool in education, academia, and other domains.LLM-DetectAIve is publicly accessible at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/LLM-DetectAIve. The video describing our system is available at https://youtu.be/E8eT_bE7k8c.