Faithfulness metric fusion: Improving the evaluation of LLM trustworthiness across domains
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present a methodology for improving the accuracy of faithfulness evaluation in Large Language Models (LLMs). The proposed methodology is based on the combination of elementary faithfulness metrics into a combined (fused) metric, for the purpose of improving the faithfulness of LLM outputs. The proposed strategy for metric fusion deploys a tree-based model to identify the importance of each metric, which is driven by the integration of human judgements evaluating the faithfulness of LLM responses. This fused metric is demonstrated to correlate more strongly with human judgements across all tested domains for faithfulness. Improving the ability to evaluate the faithfulness of LLMs, allows for greater confidence to be placed within models, allowing for their implementation in a greater diversity of scenarios. Additionally, we homogenise a collection of datasets across question answering and dialogue-based domains and implement human judgements and LLM responses within this dataset, allowing for the reproduction and trialling of faithfulness evaluation across domains.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Dec 2025.
Builds on
29 of 40 references.
References · 29
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
- 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,128
- 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 674
- 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 584
- 2019SAMSum Corpus: A Human-annotated Dialogue Dataset for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 535
- 2019Towards Scalable Multi-domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Datasetcited by 434
- 2020Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summariescited by 378
- 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 323
- 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 246
- 2020MultiWOZ 2.2 : A Dialogue Dataset with Additional Annotation Corrections and State Tracking Baselinescited by 204
- 2021To Ship or Not to Ship: An Extensive Evaluation of Automatic Metrics for Machine Translationcited by 163
17 more
- 2023Evaluating Correctness and Faithfulness of Instruction-Following Models for Question Answeringcited by 151
- 2019Assessing The Factual Accuracy of Generated Textcited by 103
- 2024The Dawn After the Dark: An Empirical Study on Factuality Hallucination in Large Language Modelscited by 88
- 2023SpokenWOZ: A Large-Scale Speech-Text Benchmark for Spoken Task-Oriented Dialogue Agentscited by 71
- 2024FABLES: Evaluating faithfulness and content selection in book-length summarizationcited by 65
- 2019AMR Parsing as Sequence-to-Graph Transductioncited by 50
- 2022FactGraph: Evaluating Factuality in Summarization with Semantic Graph Representationscited by 41
- 2023Evaluating Open-QA Evaluationcited by 35
- 2023Towards LLM-driven Dialogue State Trackingcited by 25
- 2023Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMscited by 24
- 2021QAConv: Question Answering on Informative Conversationscited by 17
- 2022Towards Fair Evaluation of Dialogue State Tracking by Flexible Incorporation of Turn-level Performancescited by 14
- 2024Predictions from language models for multiple-choice tasks are not robust under variation of scoring methodscited by 13
- 2024Accurate and Nuanced Open-QA Evaluation Through Textual Entailmentcited by 13
- 2024Evaluating the Retrieval Component in LLM-Based Question Answering Systemscited by 11
- 2024STORYSUMM: Evaluating Faithfulness in Story Summarizationcited by 9
- 2024A review of faithfulness metrics for hallucination assessment in Large Language Modelscited by 9
Built on by
Not cited yet.