arXiv (All)
open access
Do Factuality Methods Make LLMs More Factual? Reproducibility and Fair Comparison
Large Language Models (LLMs) are aligned to human preferences, after pre-training and supervised fine-tuning steps. However, standard RL alignment steps such as RLHF do not focus on factuality of LLMs, hence they may generate non-factual information, which could result in unintended consequences. In
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- AEScorer: An Agentic Evidence-Grounded Framework for Graded Factuality Verification#677470
- AEScorer: An Agentic Evidence-Grounded Framework for Graded Factuality Verification#674273
- Beyond the Verdict: Agentic Code Judging with Verifiable Feedback#1344257
- Beyond the Verdict: Agentic Code Judging with Verifiable Feedback#1319062
- Embedding qualitative data in LLM semantic space: A tutorial on conceptualization, measurement, and validation#1054851
Record · ID 1343926
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive