FActScore
Models write biographies of people, and each output is split into atomic facts. The score is the share of facts that a knowledge source supports.
OpenAI and xAI cards report a hallucination rate on FActScore prompts, where lower is better, not the original score.
In the authors’ words
Evaluating the factuality of long-form text generated by large language models (LMs) is non-trivial because (1) generations often contain a mixture of supported and unsupported pieces of information, making binary judgments of quality inadequate, and (2) human evaluation is time-consuming and costly. In this paper, we introduce FACTSCORE, a new evaluation that breaks a generation into a series of atomic facts and computes the percentage of atomic facts supported by a reliable knowledge source. We conduct an extensive human evaluation to obtain FACTSCOREs of people biographies generated by several state-of-the-art commercial LMs – InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and the retrieval-augmented PerplexityAI – and report new analysis demonstrating the need for such a fine-grained score (e.g., ChatGPT only achieves 58%). Since human evaluation is costly, we also introduce an automated model that estimates FACTSCORE using retrieval and a strong language model, with less than a 2% error rate. Finally, we use this automated metric to evaluate 6,500 generations from a new set of 13 recent LMs that would have cost $26K if evaluated by humans, with various findings: GPT-4 and ChatGPT are more factual than public models, and Vicuna and Alpaca are some of the best public models. FACTSCORE is available for public use via `pip install factscore`.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
GPT-5 leads with 1.00% among models released by Feb 2026
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
The newest model with a score here came out in Feb 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- and 16 more
- 1 GPT-5 1.00%
- 2 GPT-5 mini 3.50%
- 3 GPT-5 nano 7.30%
- 4
Seed2.0 Pro 71.2%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5 | 1.00% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 2 | GPT-5 mini | 3.50% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 3 | GPT-5 nano | 7.30% | Aug 2025 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 71.2% | Feb 2026 | Model card |
Number one over time
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs headline it less often now, last in Feb 2026
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Feb 2026 | 71.2 | FactScore | |
| 17 Nov 2025 | Grok 4.1 | 2.97 | FActScore (lower is better) [Grok 4.1 Non-Reasoning] |
| 7 Aug 2025 | GPT-5 nano | 7.3 | FActScore hallucination rate, no tools (lower is better) |
| 7 Aug 2025 | GPT-5 mini | 3.5 | FActScore hallucination rate, no tools (lower is better) |
| 7 Aug 2025 | GPT-5 | 1 | Hallucination rate on open-source prompts: FActScore (lower is better) |
4 system cards report it, from 2 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Feb 2026 | | 71.2 | FactScore (Table 3) | Hallucination |
| 7 Aug 2025 | GPT-5 system card | 3.7 | Average Hallucination Rate (Browsing Disabled), FActScore (Figure 3) | Hallucination |
| 7 Aug 2025 | GPT-5 nano system card | 7.8 | Average Hallucination Rate (Browsing Disabled), FActScore, gpt-5-thinking-nano (Figure 3) | Hallucination |
| 7 Aug 2025 | GPT-5 mini system card | 3.7 | Average Hallucination Rate (Browsing Disabled), FActScore, gpt-5-thinking-mini (Figure 3) | Hallucination |
More in Factuality
- SimpleVQA In use Models answer 2,025 short factual questions about images across 9 tasks and 9 topics. An LLM judge grades answers against fixed references.
Qwen3.7-Plus 81.7%
- HallusionBench In use Models answer 1,129 yes or no questions about 346 images, built in pairs to expose language hallucination and visual illusion. Scored by accuracy.
Keye-VL-2.0-30B-A3B 73.5%
- SimpleQA Verified In use 1,000 human-verified, de-duplicated short-answer factual questions measuring parametric knowledge.
Gemini 3.1 Pro 77.5%
- GaRAGe In use Models write long-form RAG answers to 2,366 questions with human-annotated grounding passages. Scoring checks whether answers use the relevant passages.
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 40.7%
- Kimi Hallu Bench In use Models answer hard prompts drawn from practical work tasks. Fact-checking agents score the share of claims that are hallucinated. Kimi K3.1 Pro 8.30%
- RAGTruth In use A word-level annotated corpus of hallucinations in retrieval-augmented generation answers. It is used to train and evaluate hallucination detection and RAG faithfulness.
Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 77.9%