# Do Factuality Methods Make LLMs More Factual? Reproducibility and Fair Comparison

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18415 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18415/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 26 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [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)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20783/) (2025)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14975/) (2023)
- [Crowdsourcing Multiple Choice Science Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06209/) (2017)
- [KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01306/) (2024)
- [Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.05904/) (2024)
- [Fine-tuning Language Models for Factuality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08401/) (2023)
- [Fine-grained Hallucination Detection and Editing for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06855/) (2024)
- [WiCE: Real-World Entailment for Claims in Wikipedia](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.01432/) (2023)
- [VERISCORE: Evaluating the factuality of verifiable claims in long-form text generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.19276/) (2024)
- [Unfamiliar Finetuning Examples Control How Language Models Hallucinate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05612/) (2024)
- [When to Trust LLMs: Aligning Confidence with Response Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.17287/) (2024)
- [Language Models Hallucinate, but May Excel at Fact Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.14564/) (2023)
- [FactBench: A Dynamic Benchmark for In-the-Wild Language Model Factuality Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.22257/) (2024)
- [KnowRL: Exploring Knowledgeable Reinforcement Learning for Factuality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19807/) (2025)
- [FACTORY: A Challenging Human-Verified Prompt Set for Long-Form Factuality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00109/) (2025)
- [FAITH: Factuality Alignment through Integrating Trustworthiness and Honestness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.10189/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are aligned to human preferences, after pre-training and supervised fine-tuning steps. However, standard RL alignment steps such as RLHF do not focus on factuality of LLMs, hence they may generate non-factual information, which could result in unintended consequences. In response, a number of factuality alignment approaches have been proposed in the literature which claim to improve factuality of LLMs on their own benchmarks. However, these methods have not been reproduced independently and are also not comparable since each uses a different base model, training data, evaluation set, judge, and metric. In this paper, we present the first independent reproduction of five factuality alignment methods, which span on-policy RL (PPO, GRPO, and Dr.~GRPO) and offline preference optimization (DPO and KTO), and compare them on a common benchmark with common evaluation metrics. We found that none of these methods reproduces in full, and on the common benchmark none of the methods significantly outperforms the base model. On closer inspection, the rewards optimize for format, length, or brevity rather than factuality and relevance, whereas the choice between on-policy and offline training matters little. Furthermore, the evaluation metrics and benchmarks are also part of the problem since they do not measure relevance of text to the prompt. Since there is no ground truth associated with the prompts, the reliance on LLM judges and retrieval for verification also makes the evaluation fragile. We release our code, data, and checkpoints.