Evaluates the quality of fine-grained claim decomposition and the downstream impact of sub-claim quality on fact verification performance. It probes an LLM's ability to break complex claims into atomic, sufficient, and non-fabricated sub-claims, and measures how these sub-claim properties correlate with verification accuracy. Use when the user wants to benchmark on CoverBench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports verification F1.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill factlens-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Factlens Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-factlens-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: factlens-eval
description: Evaluates the quality of fine-grained claim decomposition and the downstream impact of sub-claim quality on fact verification performance. It probes an LLM's ability to break complex claims into atomic, sufficient, and non-fabricated sub-claims, and measures how these sub-claim properties correlate with verification accuracy. Use when the user wants to benchmark on CoverBench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports verification F1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2411.05980
bibtex_key: mitra2024factlens
confidence: high
---
# factlens-eval
> FactLens: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Fact Verification — Mitra et al. (2024) (arXiv:2411.05980, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the quality of fine-grained claim decomposition and the downstream impact of sub-claim quality on fact verification performance. It probes an LLM's ability to break complex claims into atomic, sufficient, and non-fabricated sub-claims, and measures how these sub-claim properties correlate with verification accuracy.
## Datasets
- **CoverBench** — total 733; splits: eval (733); repo https://github.com/megagonlabs/factlens
## Metrics
- `atomicity` — range: [1, 3]
- Categorical score (non-atomic-2, non-atomic-1, atomic) mapped to numerical values (1, 2, 3). Average across instances.
- `sufficiency` — range: other
- Categorical score (low, medium, high) averaged across instances.
- `fabrication` — range: other
- Categorical score (low, medium, high) averaged across instances.
- `coverage` — range: other
- Categorical score (low, medium, high) averaged across instances.
- `redundancy` — range: other
- Categorical score (low, medium, high) averaged across instances.
- `readability` — range: other
- Categorical score (low, medium, high) averaged across instances.
- `verification F1` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- F1-score of the aggregated claim-level verification label against ground-truth claim labels.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Original complex claim and associated evidence/context from CoverBench.
**Output**: List of decomposed sub-claims, per-sub-claim verification labels (true/false), and an aggregated claim-level verification label.
## Scoring recipe
```python
sub_claims = decompose_claim(claim)
sub_labels = [verify(sub_claim, evidence) for sub_claim in sub_claims]
claim_label = 'false' if any(l == 'false' for l in sub_labels) else 'true'
# FactLens Evaluator metrics (mapped to 1-3 or low/med/high)
atomicity_score = map_to_1_2_3(atomicity_label)
sufficiency_score = map_to_1_2_3(sufficiency_label)
# ... similarly for fabrication, coverage, redundancy, readability
# Aggregation
avg_atomicity = mean(atomicity_score across 733 instances)
verification_f1 = f1_score(gold_claim_labels, claim_label)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Sub-claim verification labels are aggregated to the claim level using a strict 'any-false' rule, which may penalize models for minor sub-claim errors even if the overall claim is true.
- Metrics like atomicity and fabrication use categorical low/medium/high scores that are manually mapped to numerical values (1-3) for averaging, which can obscure distribution details.
- The evaluation isolates decomposition and verification from evidence retrieval, meaning performance does not reflect end-to-end retrieval-augmented pipelines.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> For each instance, we map the ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ scores (‘non-atomic-2’, ‘non-atomic-1’, ‘atomic’ for atomicity) to numerical values (1, 2, 3 respectively), and report the average for each metric across all 733 instances in the CoverBench dataset. To compare the performance of fine-grained verification labels (for each sub-claim) with the holistic verification label, we aggregate the fine-grained labels as false if at least one of the fine-grained labels is also false; otherwise, the claim is considered true.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{mitra2024factlens,
title={FactLens: Benchmarking Fine-Grained Fact Verification},
author={Mitra et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2411.05980}
}
```
- arXiv: 2411.05980
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!