Benchmarking LLM Faithfulness in RAG with Evolving Leaderboards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) aims to reduce hallucinations by grounding responses in external context, yet LLMs still frequently introduce unsupported information or contradictions even when provided with relevant context. In this paper, we present two complementary efforts at CompanyX to measure and benchmark LLM faithfulness in RAG. First, we describe our public LeaderboardX, which has tracked hallucination rates for over 140 LLMs since 2023 using our ModelX hallucination-detection model. Motivated by limitations observed in current detection methods, we introduce JudgeX, an LLM-as-a-judge framework that leverages a pool of diverse human-annotated hallucination examples to substantially improve the automated hallucination evaluation of LLMs. We introduce an enhanced hallucination leaderboard centered on JudgeX that benchmarks LLMs on RAG faithfulness in summarization, question-answering, and data-to-text generation tasks, alongside our current hallucination leaderboard. Together, these resources enable a more reliable benchmarking of LLM hallucinations in RAG and support the development of more trustworthy generative AI systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".