# A review of faithfulness metrics for hallucination assessment in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00269 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00269/

## Key facts

- Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 67 of its 86 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Dec 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 67)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1508.05326/) (2015)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08745/) (2018)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10511/) (2022)
- [COMET: A Neural Framework for MT Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.09025/) (2020)
- [SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity - Multilingual and Cross-lingual Focused Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.00055/) (2017)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [Abstractive Text Summarization Using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.06023/) (2016)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12626/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.02622/) (2019)
- [SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09525/) (2021)
- [AmbigQA: Answering Ambiguous Open-domain Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10645/) (2020)
- [Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04228/) (2020)
- [FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.03754/) (2020)
- [Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.13346/) (2021)
- [Few-shot Learning with Multilingual Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.10668/) (2021)
- [ToTTo: A Controlled Table-To-Text Generation Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.14373/) (2020)
- [Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07197/) (2022)
- [QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.12693/) (2021)
- [Factuality Enhanced Language Models for Open-Ended Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04624/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Large Language Models Hallucination: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.06265/) (2025)
- [SoK: Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Taxonomy, Architectures, Evaluation, and Research Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.07379/) (2026)
- [From Extraction to Synthesis: Entangled Heuristics for Agent-Augmented Strategic Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.13768/) (2025)
- [Do Multimodal Large Language Models Understand Welding?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16537/) (2025)
- [Faithfulness metric fusion: Improving the evaluation of LLM trustworthiness across domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.05700/) (2025)
- [Medication counseling with large language models: balancing flexibility and rigidity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11544/) (2025)
- [Enhancing Scientific Literature Chatbots with Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Performance Evaluation of Vector and Graph-Based Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17856/) (2026)
- [LLM-Based Code Documentation Generation and Multi-Judge Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.09852/) (2026)
- [AquiLLM: Evaluating Faithfulness in Open-Weight RAG-LLM Systems for Scientific Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.16519/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This review examines the means with which faithfulness has been evaluated across open-ended summarization, question-answering and machine translation tasks. We find that the use of LLMs as a faithfulness evaluator is commonly the metric that is most highly correlated with human judgement. The means with which other studies have mitigated hallucinations is discussed, with both retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and prompting framework approaches having been linked with superior faithfulness, whilst other recommendations for mitigation are provided. Research into faithfulness is integral to the continued widespread use of LLMs, as unfaithful responses can pose major risks to many areas whereby LLMs would otherwise be suitable. Furthermore, evaluating open-ended generation provides a more comprehensive measure of LLM performance than commonly used multiple-choice benchmarking, which can help in advancing the trust that can be placed within LLMs.