# Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answering

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16877 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16877/

## Key facts

- Cited by 151 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 66 of its 91 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 66)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04906/) (2020)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.01068/) (2022)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11416/) (2022)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09751/) (2019)
- [Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10560/) (2022)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08207/) (2021)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.01282/) (2020)
- [Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11446/) (2021)
- [When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10511/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Atlas: Few-shot Learning with Retrieval Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.03299/) (2022)
- [Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.07705/) (2022)
- [REPLUG: Retrieval-Augmented Black-Box Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.12652/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05782/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 151)

- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [Siren's Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01219/) (2023)
- [Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10792/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01431/) (2023)
- [MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10774/) (2024)
- [LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16289/) (2023)
- [RAGBench: Explainable Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.11005/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Meet NLP: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.12819/) (2024)
- [Tug-of-War Between Knowledge: Exploring and Resolving Knowledge Conflicts in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14409/) (2024)
- [Cutting Off the Head Ends the Conflict: A Mechanism for Interpreting and Mitigating Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18154/) (2024)
- [Fast Adversarial Attacks on Language Models In One GPU Minute](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15570/) (2024)
- [FaithEval: Can Your Language Model Stay Faithful to Context, Even If "The Moon is Made of Marshmallows"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03727/) (2024)
- [Cognitive Mirage: A Review of Hallucinations in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06794/) (2023)
- [RAG vs Fine-tuning: Pipelines, Tradeoffs, and a Case Study on Agriculture](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08406/) (2024)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Natural Language Processing: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13193/) (2024)
- [LLM Discussion: Enhancing the Creativity of Large Language Models via Discussion Framework and Role-Play](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.06373/) (2024)
- [On Early Detection of Hallucinations in Factual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14183/) (2023)
- [Can Long-Context Language Models Subsume Retrieval, RAG, SQL, and More?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13121/) (2024)
- [Generate-then-Ground in Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14891/) (2024)
- [MTRAG: A Multi-Turn Conversational Benchmark for Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03468/) (2025)
- [Usable XAI: 10 Strategies Towards Exploiting Explainability in the LLM Era](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08946/) (2024)
- [Cheating Automatic LLM Benchmarks: Null Models Achieve High Win Rates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07137/) (2024)
- [Improving fine-grained understanding in image-text pre-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.09865/) (2024)
- [Retrieval-augmented Generation to Improve Math Question-Answering: Trade-offs Between Groundedness and Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03184/) (2023)
- [AI Hallucinations: A Misnomer Worth Clarifying](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06796/) (2024)
- [Genie: Achieving Human Parity in Content-Grounded Datasets Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14367/) (2024)
- [RepLiQA: A Question-Answering Dataset for Benchmarking LLMs on Unseen Reference Content](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11811/) (2024)
- [Beyond the Turn-Based Game: Enabling Real-Time Conversations with Duplex Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15718/) (2024)
- [Automated Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Language Models with Task-Specific Exam Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13622/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Retriever-augmented instruction-following models are attractive alternatives to fine-tuned approaches for information-seeking tasks such as question answering (QA). By simply prepending retrieved documents in its input along with an instruction, these models can be adapted to various information domains and tasks without additional fine-tuning. While the model responses tend to be natural and fluent, the additional verbosity makes traditional QA evaluation metrics such as exact match (EM) and F1 unreliable for accurately quantifying model performance. In this work, we investigate the performance of instruction-following models across three information-seeking QA tasks. We use both automatic and human evaluation to evaluate these models along two dimensions: 1) how well they satisfy the user's information need (correctness), and 2) whether they produce a response based on the provided knowledge (faithfulness). Guided by human evaluation and analysis, we highlight the shortcomings of traditional metrics for both correctness and faithfulness. We then propose simple token-overlap based and model-based metrics that reflect the true performance of these models. Our analysis reveals that instruction-following models are competitive, and sometimes even outperform fine-tuned models for correctness. However, these models struggle to stick to the provided knowledge and often hallucinate in their responses. We hope our work encourages a more holistic evaluation of instruction-following models for QA. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/McGill-NLP/instruct-qa