Research

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

精确性不等于忠实度:完整Oracle下的覆盖感知接地生成评估

arXiv logo

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

arXiv.org

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.

Open source

Recommended because

This is worth tracking because it is a concrete research signal, not just a passing headline. The source preview points to a research result, method, evaluation, dataset, or safety finding. For builders and operators, "Precision Is Not Faithfulness: Coverage-Aware Evaluation of Grounded Generation with a Complete Oracle" can be used as a checkpoint for technical due diligence, roadmap bets, agent design, and evaluation strategy. I keep this thread indexed so future searches around AI research papers, technical methods, and applied AI systems can land on a source-linked page instead of disappearing into a fast-moving feed from arXiv.org.

What to take from this signal

Context

"Precision Is Not Faithfulness: Coverage-Aware Evaluation of Grounded Generation with a Complete Oracle" is archived here as a source-linked AI signal from arXiv.org. The useful part is the connection between Precision, Faithfulness, Coverage-Aware, Evaluation, Grounded and technical due diligence, roadmap bets, agent design, and evaluation strategy, which makes the item more actionable than a normal feed headline. The source context says: 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.

Builder takeaway

For an AI builder, the main takeaway is to watch how this signal changes practical decisions around technical feasibility, evaluation design, safety limits, and product primitives. It can inform what to test next, which product surface to compare, and whether the underlying workflow is ready for real users.

Source context

arXiv.org remains the authoritative source for the original claim. This page adds a stable archive URL, a short builder interpretation, and related search language so the item can be found later when the original feed has moved on.

Search angles

  • Precision Is Not Faithfulness: Coverage-Aware Evaluation of Grounded Generation with a Complete Oracle Research context
  • arXiv.org AI research
  • Precision, Faithfulness, Coverage-Aware, Evaluation, Grounded builder takeaway
  • AI research papers, technical methods, and applied AI systems

This page keeps a source preview and a stable archive URL for search discovery. The original source remains authoritative.