Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a widely-used tool for information seeking, but their generated outputs are prone to hallucination. In this work, our aim is to allow LLMs to generate text with citations, improving their factual correctness and verifiability. Existing work mainly relies on commercial search engines and human evaluation, making it challenging to reproduce and compare different modeling approaches. We propose ALCE, the first benchmark for Automatic LLMs’ Citation Evaluation. ALCE collects a diverse set of questions and retrieval corpora and requires building end-to-end systems to retrieve supporting evidence and generate answers with citations. We develop automatic metrics along three dimensions—fluency, correctness, and citation quality—and demonstrate their strong correlation with human judgements. Our experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs and novel prompting strategies show that current systems have considerable room for improvement—For example, on the ELI5 dataset, even the best models lack complete citation support 50% of the time. Our analyses further highlight promising future directions, including developing better retrievers, advancing long-context LLMs, and improving the ability to synthesize information from multiple sources.

Previous research on open-domain question answering (QA) mainly focuses on questions with short answers. However, information-seeking QA often requires various formats of answers depending on the nature of the questions, e.g., why/how questions typically require a long answer. In this paper, we present MoQA, a benchmark for open-domain QA that requires building one system that can provide short, medium, long, and yes/no answers to different questions accordingly. MoQA builds upon Natural Questions with multiple types of questions and additional crowdsourcing efforts to ensure high query quality. We adapt state-of-the-art models, and reveal unique findings in multi-type open-domain QA: (1) For retriever-reader models, training one retriever on all types achieves the overall best performance, but it is challenging to train one reader model to output answers of different formats, or to train a question classifier to distinguish between types; (2) An end-to-end closed-book QA model trained on multiple types struggles with the task across the board; (3) State-of-the-art large language models such as the largest GPT-3 models (Brown et al., 2020; Ouyang et al., 2022) also lag behind open-book QA models. Our benchmark and analysis call for more effort into building versatile open-domain QA models in the future.