Merging Facts, Crafting Fallacies: Evaluating the Contradictory Nature of Aggregated Factual Claims in Long-Form Generations

Long-form generations from large language models (LLMs) contain a mix of factual and non-factual claims, making evaluating factuality difficult. Prior works evaluate the factuality of a long paragraph by decomposing it into multiple facts, verifying those facts independently, and aggregating the results. Such methods assume that combining factual claims forms a factual paragraph. The above assumption can be violated: we show that strong open-source models like Llama-chat can generate paragraphs that contain verifiable facts, but the facts are combined into a non-factual paragraph due to entity ambiguity. We further reveal that existing factuality metrics, including FActScore and citation recall, cannot properly evaluate these non-factual paragraphs and overestimate their factuality. To address this, we introduce an enhanced metric, D-FActScore, specifically designed for content with ambiguous entities. We evaluate the D-FActScores of people biographies generated by retrieval-augmented LLMs. We show that D-FActScore can better assess the factuality of paragraphs with entity ambiguity than FActScore. We also find that four widely used open-source LLMs tend to mix information of distinct entities to form non-factual paragraphs, making their D-FActScore much lower than FActScore by over 10%.