Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Automatic Evaluation of Attribution by Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.06311 v2 pith:2ZH2OD77 submitted 2023-05-10 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords attributionevaluationautomaticlanguageproblemexamplesfine-tuninggenerative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

A recent focus of large language model (LLM) development, as exemplified by generative search engines, is to incorporate external references to generate and support its claims. However, evaluating the attribution, i.e., verifying whether the generated statement is fully supported by the cited reference, remains an open problem. Although human evaluation is common practice, it is costly and time-consuming. In this paper, we investigate the automatic evaluation of attribution given by LLMs. We begin by defining different types of attribution errors, and then explore two approaches for automatic evaluation: prompting LLMs and fine-tuning smaller LMs. The fine-tuning data is repurposed from related tasks such as question answering, fact-checking, natural language inference, and summarization. We manually curate a set of test examples covering 12 domains from a generative search engine, New Bing. Our results on this curated test set and simulated examples from existing benchmarks highlight both promising signals and challenges. We hope our problem formulation, testbeds, and findings will help lay the foundation for future studies on this important problem.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Equal Accuracy, Unequal Evidence: Search APIs as Decision Surfaces for Tool-Using Agents

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Equal semantic accuracy across Brave, Tavily, and Firecrawl (25–26/100) hides sharply different pre-fetch support, rank-1 concentration, contradiction ratios, and agent exploration regimes under one frozen agent.

  2. Overview of the ClinIQLink 2025 Shared Task on Medical Question-Answering

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 4,978-item medical QA benchmark shows modern LLMs handle true/false and multiple choice well but struggle with list questions and multi-hop reasoning.

  3. Map&Make: Schema Guided Text to Table Generation

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Map&Make decomposes text into atomic statements and uses them to iteratively plan and fill tables, improving information coverage over CoT and T3 baselines on Rotowire, Livesum, and Wiki40B.

Pith tools