Evaluates the long-form factuality of LLM-generated responses by extracting claims, verifying them against evidence, and comparing the system's factuality scores against human annotations. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FaStfact-Bench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F₁@K′.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill fastfact-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Fastfact Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-fastfact-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: fastfact-eval
description: Evaluates the long-form factuality of LLM-generated responses by extracting claims, verifying them against evidence, and comparing the system's factuality scores against human annotations. Use when the user wants to benchmark on FaStfact-Bench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports F₁@K′.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2510.12839
bibtex_key: wan2025fastfact
confidence: high
---
# fastfact-eval
> FaStfact: Faster, Stronger Long-Form Factuality Evaluations in LLMs — Wan et al. (2025) (arXiv:2510.12839, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the long-form factuality of LLM-generated responses by extracting claims, verifying them against evidence, and comparing the system's factuality scores against human annotations.
## Datasets
- **FaStfact-Bench** — total 400; splits: test (400); repo https://github.com/Yingjia-Wan/FastFact
## Metrics
- `F₁@K′` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- F1 score computed at a threshold K′, measuring the overlap between predicted and ground-truth claim counts/scores.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Long-form QA pairs (question + generated response) with ground-truth human annotations for claim counts and factuality.
**Output**: Predicted factuality score (F₁@K′), extracted claim count, and total token cost per sample.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, gold):
pred_claims = extract_claims(predictions['response'])
gt_claims = gold['claim_count']
f1_at_k_prime = f1_score(pred_claims, gt_claims, threshold=K_prime)
delta_k = abs(pred_claims - gt_claims)
delta_f1 = abs(f1_at_k_prime - gold['f1_score'])
token_cost = count_tokens(predictions['response'])
return f1_at_k_prime, delta_k, delta_f1, token_cost
```
## Common pitfalls
- Using sentence-level chunking (stride=1) causes over-decomposition, inflating claim counts and token costs without improving accuracy.
- Token cost is reported as the primary efficiency proxy, which may not reflect actual inference latency or wall-clock time.
- Alignment metrics ($|\Delta K|$ and $|\Delta F_{1}@K^{\prime}|$) measure absolute deviation, potentially masking systematic bias in claim extraction.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> By utilizing the ground-truth annotations from FaStfact-Bench, we run FaStfact and several baselines in parallel using the same underlying LLM as the extractor and verifier to compare their (1) evaluation reliability, proxied by the alignment with human judgment average $|\Delta K|$ and $|\Delta$$F_{1}@K^{\prime}$ $|$, and (2) practical efficiency, proxied by total token cost per sample.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{wan2025fastfact,
title={FaStfact: Faster, Stronger Long-Form Factuality Evaluations in LLMs},
author={Wan et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2510.12839}
}
```
- arXiv: 2510.12839
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!