Benchmark Almanac

FActScore

GPT-5 1.00% leads since Aug 2025 Fading

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`.

Abstract of FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation (arXiv:2305.14251, CC0)
Made by Sewon Min et al. (University of Washington and collaborators) Released May 2023 Long-form factuality All tasks public Last in a launch post Feb 2026 , dropped before it saturated Last model added Feb 2026
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.
4
Models scored in lab cards
5
Launch posts list it, from 3 labs
4
System cards report it, from 2 labs

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:

  1. 1 GPT-5 1.00%
  2. 2 GPT-5 mini 3.50%
  3. 3 GPT-5 nano 7.30%
  4. 4 Seed2.0 Pro 71.2%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
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 Seed2.0 Pro 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.

OpenAI
Lab claims Not tested since Feb 2026
GPT-5 1.00%

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 GPT-5 GPT-5 nano 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 GPT-5 GPT-5 nano

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.

OpenAI
xAI
ByteDance Seed
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
14 Feb 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
14 Feb 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 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

All 70 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%