Precision Is Not Faithfulness: Coverage-Aware Evaluation of Grounded Generation with a Complete Oracle

Hugging Face Daily Papers Papers
faithfulness-metrics grounded-generation evaluation precision recall coverage

Summary

This paper identifies a blind spot in reference-free faithfulness metrics: they only measure precision (whether claims are supported) but not recall (coverage of relevant facts). The authors introduce a complete-oracle evaluation using Formula 1 telemetry and weather data, showing that high-precision models often have poor coverage, and propose a combined metric.

Reference-free faithfulness metrics verify each atomic claim a model makes against ground truth, and are increasingly used to evaluate grounded generation. We show they share a blind spot: they measure only precision -- are the stated claims supported? -- and therefore reward abstention, since a model can score near-perfect faithfulness by saying almost nothing. We make this measurable using Formula 1 telemetry, a domain where strategic ground truth is derived deterministically and, crucially, completely: for each decision we know the full set of facts that mattered. This completeness -- absent in open-domain faithfulness benchmarks -- lets us measure recall (coverage of the relevant facts) exactly, alongside precision. On a multilingual (EN/ES/PT) benchmark of 7,253 decision instances spanning 150 races, the most precise frontier model covers under half of the relevant facts and ranks last by F1, so requiring coverage reorders the systems; the same effect reappears in a second complete-oracle domain (NOAA weather forecasts). A prompt ablation shows the low coverage is not an under-prompting artifact: explicitly asking models to be thorough does not close the gap. We pair faithfulness with coverage into a single score, validate the metric (controlled perturbation; agreement across a model-free regex extractor and a cross-family LLM extractor, system-level Spearman 1.0), and give a verifier-guided generation method that improves precision and recall without references. We release the benchmark, structured annotations, metric, baselines, and an interactive demo.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 06/10/26, 12:08 AM

Paper page - Precision Is Not Faithfulness: Coverage-Aware Evaluation of Grounded Generation with a Complete Oracle

Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2606.09376

Abstract

Reference-free faithfulness metrics suffer from a blind spot measuring only precision, leading to rewards for abstention; completeness in deterministic domains enables measurement of both precision and recall, revealing that high-precision models often have poor fact coverage.

Reference-freefaithfulness metricsverify each atomic claim a model makes against ground truth, and are increasingly used to evaluategrounded generation. We show they share a blind spot: they measure onlyprecision-- are the stated claims supported? -- and therefore reward abstention, since a model can score near-perfect faithfulness by saying almost nothing. We make this measurable using Formula 1 telemetry, a domain where strategic ground truth is derived deterministically and, crucially, completely: for each decision we know the full set of facts that mattered. This completeness -- absent in open-domain faithfulness benchmarks -- lets us measurerecall(coverage of the relevant facts) exactly, alongsideprecision. On a multilingual (EN/ES/PT) benchmark of 7,253 decision instances spanning 150 races, the most precise frontier model covers under half of the relevant facts and ranks last by F1, so requiring coverage reorders the systems; the same effect reappears in a second complete-oracle domain (NOAA weather forecasts). A prompt ablation shows the low coverage is not an under-prompting artifact: explicitly asking models to be thorough does not close the gap. We pair faithfulness with coverage into a single score, validate the metric (controlled perturbation; agreement across a model-free regex extractor and a cross-family LLM extractor, system-level Spearman 1.0), and give averifier-guided generationmethod that improvesprecisionandrecallwithout references. We release the benchmark, structured annotations, metric, baselines, and an interactive demo.

View arXiv pageView PDFProject pageGitHub0Add to collection

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2606\.09376

Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash

Models citing this paper0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.09376 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.09376 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper1

Collections including this paper0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.

Similar Articles

Measuring AI Faithfulness-For Better or For Worse

Reddit r/AI_Agents

This article discusses the importance of faithfulness in LLM optimization, introducing a Structural Fidelity Score that measures drift across word overlap, constraint survival, and task-type match to ensure prompt optimization does not sacrifice intent.

Faithfulness-Aware Uncertainty Quantification for Fact-Checking the Output of Retrieval Augmented Generation

arXiv cs.CL

This paper introduces FRANQ, a method for detecting hallucinations in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems by applying distinct uncertainty quantification techniques to distinguish between factuality and faithfulness to retrieved context. The authors construct a new dataset annotated for both factuality and faithfulness, and demonstrate that FRANQ outperforms existing approaches in detecting factual errors across multiple datasets and LLMs.