FACTORY: A Challenging Human-Verified Prompt Set for Long-Form Factuality

Mingda Chen, Yang Li, Xilun Chen, Adina Williams, Gargi Ghosh +1 more
7/31/2025
cs.CLcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Long-form factuality evaluation assesses the ability of models to generate accurate, comprehensive responses to short prompts. Existing benchmarks often lack human verification, leading to potential quality issues. To address this limitation, we introduce FACTORY, a large-scale, human-verified prompt set. Developed using a model-in-the-loop approach and refined by humans, FACTORY includes challenging prompts that are fact-seeking, answerable, and unambiguous. We conduct human evaluations on 6 state-of-the-art language models using FACTORY and existing datasets. Our results show that FACTORY is a challenging benchmark: approximately 40% of the claims made in the responses of SOTA models are not factual, compared to only 10% for other datasets. Our analysis identifies the strengths of FACTORY over prior benchmarks, emphasizing its reliability and the necessity for models to reason across long-tailed facts.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{chen2025factory,
  title  = {FACTORY: A Challenging Human-Verified Prompt Set for Long-Form Factuality},
  author = {Mingda Chen and Yang Li and Xilun Chen and Adina Williams and Gargi Ghosh and Scott Yih},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2508.00109},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00109v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2508.00109.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2508.00109)

Discussion