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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Equal Accuracy, Unequal Evidence: Search APIs as Decision Surfaces for Tool-Using Agents
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.
-
Overview of the ClinIQLink 2025 Shared Task on Medical Question-Answering
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.
-
Map&Make: Schema Guided Text to Table Generation
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.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.