Molecular Facts: Desiderata for Decontextualization
in LLM Fact Verification

Recall our setting where an LLM has generated a response $\mathbf{r}$ to input prompt $\mathbf{x}$, and $\mathbf{r}$ has associated claims $(\mathbf{c}_{1},\ldots,\mathbf{c}_{n})$. For each $\mathbf{c}_{i}$, we have a corresponding set of $k$ evidence documents, $D_{i}=(D_{i,1},\ldots,D_{i,k})$, that are referenced to assess the accuracy of $\mathbf{c}_{i}$. Furthermore, we have access to a gold standard of human-annotated labels for each atomic fact, represented as $L=(l_{1},\ldots,l_{n})$, where each $l_{i}$ can be either SUPPORTED or NOT_SUPPORTED. Our goal is to make judgments about the supportedness of the $\mathbf{c}_{i}$, which requires appropriately decontextualizing each fact.

We augment each atomic claim $\mathbf{c}_{i}$ to a corresponding molecular claim $\mathbf{m}_{i}$ as described in Section 3, resulting in a set of facts $(\mathbf{m}_{1},\ldots{\mathbf{m}_{n}})$. We represent the model’s factuality judgment prediction as a set of supported documents ${p}_{i}=\mathrm{Check}(D_{i,j},\mathbf{m}_{i}),\quad\text{for all }j\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}\text{ in }D_{i}$. In other words, the prediction of $\mathrm{Check()}$ is accurate when it supports the molecular claim with the same evidence docs as humans.

We analyze the robustness of fact verification across various systems on the defined criteria of minimality and decontextuality. Outputs for baselines are generated with gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09.

ATOMIC:

Atomic claims are generated from the LLM’s response using Min et al. (2023).

SIMPLE-DECONTEXT:

Atomic claims are decontextualized with a prompt described in 8 using the LLM’s generated response as context for the atomic claim.

SAFE-DECONTEXT:

Decontextualization of atomic claims is performed using the revision prompt described in Wei et al. (2024).

MOLECULAR-DECONTEXT:

This approach follows a two-stage process described in section 3 to identify disambiguation criteria and subsequently decontextualize the atomic claim.

Examples of outputs from each method can be found in Figure 3. With this task definition and baseline methodologies, we structure our experiments to analyze the two criteria presented in Section 2.1 in the following sections.

We now detail the dataset construction process as illustrated in Figure 2. We take a dataset $D$ of 812 claims from the Factcheck-Bench dataset Wang et al. (2024) which consists of long form ChatGPT responses with human-annotated factuality labels.

Step 1: Extract Atomic Facts For each response $\mathbf{r}\in D$, we extract atomic facts $(\mathbf{c}_{1},\ldots,\mathbf{c}_{n})$ using the method of Min et al. (2023).

Step 2: Decontextualization: We perform decontextualization of the extracted atomic facts using SIMPLE-DECONTEXT and SAFE-DECONTEXT. Let the decontextualization for claim $\mathbf{c}_{i}$ be denoted as $\mathbf{d}_{i}$. We refer to the $\mathbf{c}_{i}$ that $\mathbf{d}_{i}$ was created from as its core atomic fact; however, note that $\mathbf{d}_{i}$ might support other facts as well.

Step 3: Identifying Claims with Multiple Atomic Facts: We identify decontextualized claims that entail information of more than one atomic fact. We use the entailment model from Liu et al. (2022) to determine $e(\mathbf{d}_{i},\mathbf{c}_{j})\in\{\mathrm{supported},\mathrm{unsupported}\}$; is each $\mathbf{c}_{j}$ supported by $\mathbf{d}_{i}$? We retain cases where $e(\mathbf{d}_{i},\mathbf{c}_{i})=\mathrm{supported}$ and where $|\{j:e(\mathbf{d}_{i},\mathbf{c}_{j})=\mathrm{supported}\}|\geq 2$; that is, at least two atomic facts are supported by $\mathbf{d}_{i}$. For example, in Figure 2, the claim ($\mathbf{d}_{i}$), ‘The “Blackpink in Your Area” compilation album was released in 2018‘, is a decontextualized claim derived from the core atomic claim ($\mathbf{c}_{i}$), ‘The album was released in 2018.’. The decontextualized claim ($\mathbf{d}_{i}$) entails the core atomic fact ($\mathbf{c}_{i}$) and an additional atomic fact ($\mathbf{c}_{j}$) ‘ “Blackpink in Your Area” is a compilation album’. Let $D^{\prime}$ denote this filtered set.

Step 4: Generating Evidence for Partial Support: Whenever multiple atomic facts are merged, we could theoretically see a loss in localization capability from a model: if one fact is not supported, the entire claim will be determined to be not supported. To demonstrate this possibility, we now generate evidence that partially supports our multi-fact claims. As an example, in Figure 2, our goal in step 4 is to generate a paragraph that should not include details about “Blackpink in Your Area” being a compilation album. Then, if the statement ‘The album was released in 2018’ is decontextualized to include information about it being a compilation album, this paragraph will enable us to identify this: the evidence will no longer support the decontextualized fact, reflecting a failure of error localization.

By construction of $D^{\prime}$, $\mathbf{d}_{i}$ is supported by at least two facts, its core atomic fact and auxiliary atomic fact(s). From this set of auxiliary atomic fact(s), we sample a banned fact $\mathbf{c}_{b}$. For each $\mathbf{d}_{i}$, we sample a set of key facts $C_{i}=\{\mathbf{c}_{i,1},\ldots,\mathbf{c}_{i,m}\}$ such that $C_{i}$ contains the all atomic facts of the response $r$ except $\mathbf{c}_{b}$. We then prompt the LLM to generate an evidence article supporting the facts $C_{i}$ and not supporting the fact $c_{j}$. Each of these evidence articles ideally should support all the key facts and not support the banned fact.

The prompt for this step is detailed in Figure 10 and other filtering criteria are described in Appendix F. Denote this set where evidence generation is feasible as $E^{\prime}$.

We evaluate the impacts of loss of minimality on the recall of fact-checking. We measure the percentage of cases that change their label from SUPPORTED to NOT_SUPPORTED after decontextualization on the set $E^{\prime}$. We employ the roberta-large from AlignScore Zha et al. (2023) as our $\mathrm{Check()}$ function.²²2We conducted preliminary analysis with GPT-4 as well, and found it gave very similar results. Using $\mathrm{Check(D_{i},c_{i})}$, we identify cases where the core key fact is SUPPORTED by the generated evidence while the decontextualization and banned fact are NOT_SUPPORTED. We call this set auto non-minimal.

Table 1 shows the fraction of claims which are included in the set $E^{\prime}$, which yields 8.49% for SAFE-DECONTEXT and 23.39% for SIMPLE-DECONTEXT. We refer to these claims as potential non-minimal claims: they have passed the checks in our pipeline and contain multiple atomic facts. Next we apply the $\mathrm{Check()}$ function to identify auto non-minimal claims, and find that they occur at a rate of 3.94% to 13.42% (Table 1).

We find through our controlled experiment and human evaluation that decontextualization can lead to non-minimal cases for between 1.7% to 9.6% of decontextualizations. These cases could cause error localization issues due to too much information added to the claims. In absolute terms, this is a low fraction for the baseline SAFE-DECONTEXT. However, we note that a biography from FActScore Min et al. (2023) contains dozens of atomic facts, meaning that in a single response from an LLM, there can easily be a handful of facts posing localization problems. Given the increasing adoption of the decomposition and decontextualization pipeline for automatic fact verification systems, we argue that multiple localization errors per response is cause to re-examine that pipeline. Next, we analyze tradeoffs between minimality and decontextuality for fact checking of ambiguous biographies.