REVIEW 1 cited by
Multi-FAct: Assessing Factuality of Multilingual LLMs using FActScore
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
Evaluating the factuality of long-form large language model (LLM)-generated text is an important challenge. Recently there has been a surge of interest in factuality evaluation for English, but little is known about the factuality evaluation of multilingual LLMs, specially when it comes to long-form generation. %This paper systematically evaluates multilingual LLMs' factual accuracy across languages and geographic regions. We introduce a simple pipeline for multilingual factuality evaluation, by applying FActScore (Min et al., 2023) for diverse languages. In addition to evaluating multilingual factual generation, we evaluate the factual accuracy of long-form text generation in topics that reflect regional diversity. We also examine the feasibility of running the FActScore pipeline using non-English Wikipedia and provide comprehensive guidelines on multilingual factual evaluation for regionally diverse topics.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Multi-OphthaLingua: A Multilingual Benchmark for Assessing and Debiasing LLM Ophthalmological QA in LMICs
A new seven-language ophthalmology benchmark shows LLMs are less accurate in LMIC languages, and an agentic translation-plus-RAG pipeline reduces the gap.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.