Benchmark Almanac

FActScore

GPT-5 1.00% leads since August 2025
Dropped

Models write biographies of people, and each output is split into atomic facts checked against a knowledge source. Labs report the hallucination rate, the share of facts it does not support.

OpenAI and xAI report this rate on FActScore prompts. The paper's own score, the share of supported facts, is the FActScore precision record.

Released
May 2023
Kind
Long-form factuality
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5 #70 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
November 2025, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
November 2025

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)
3
Models scored in lab cards
4
Launch posts list it, from 2 labs
3
System cards report it, from 1 lab

GPT-5 leads with 1.00% among models released by August 2025

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 August 2025, 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%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5 1.00% Aug 2025 Lab model card
2 GPT-5 mini 3.50% Aug 2025 Lab model card
3 GPT-5 nano 7.30% Aug 2025 Lab 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 Aug 2025
GPT-5 1.00%

Source: Labs’ model cards

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% GPT-5 GPT-5 nano 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% GPT-5 GPT-5 nano

Source: Labs’ model cards

No launch post has listed it since November 2025

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
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Nov 17, 2025 Grok 4.1 2.97 FActScore (lower is better) [Grok 4.1 Non-Reasoning]
Aug 7, 2025 GPT-5 nano 7.3 FActScore hallucination rate, no tools (lower is better)
Aug 7, 2025 GPT-5 mini 3.5 FActScore hallucination rate, no tools (lower is better)
Aug 7, 2025 GPT-5 1 Hallucination rate on open-source prompts: FActScore (lower is better)

3 system cards report it, from 1 lab

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
Aug 7, 2025 GPT-5 system card 3.7 Average Hallucination Rate (Browsing Disabled), FActScore (Figure 3) Hallucination
Aug 7, 2025 GPT-5 nano system card 7.8 Average Hallucination Rate (Browsing Disabled), FActScore, gpt-5-thinking-nano (Figure 3) Hallucination
Aug 7, 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 74 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%
  • 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. GPT-6 Astra 4.20%
  • Internal adversarially-designed factuality evaluations In use Models answer adversarial questions in nine categories such as history, math and code. Scored on agreement with human ideal responses. GPT-6 Luna 7.60%
  • AA-Omniscience v1.1 In use Models answer 3,000 knowledge questions in six domains without tools and may abstain. The index adds correct answers and subtracts wrong ones. Inkling 2 Small 16.1