Factuality.AI systems may generate information or responses that are not grounded in factual knowledge or data, leading to the creation of misleading or false content, formally known as _hallucination_(Ji et al., 2023). Factuality evaluation aims to ensure the consistency of the knowledge in the AI system's output with the knowledge provided by its training data and knowledge base (Ji et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2023c). Early statistical-based hallucination evaluation methods relied on n-grams to directly calculate the overlap of vocabulary between the input and output content (Dhingra et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). However, these methods have limitations, as they only consider lexical overlap and do not account for semantics or sentence meaning (Ji et al., 2023), making them unsuitable for evaluating more complex forms of hallucination. Subsequent assurance methods shifted from statistical approaches to model-based methods, which are more robust compared to token-difference-based methods (Honovich et al., 2021). While these model-based evaluation methods are more advanced than their predecessors, they still have limitations. For example, the models can only output the degree of hallucination and may struggle to pinpoint specific errors (Falke et al., 2019). Feng et al. (2023a) propose to combine LLMs generation with random walks on knowledge graphs to generate synthetic evaluation data for factuality, which is aware of entities and relations on the graphs. Wei et al. (2024) created a synthetic dataset called LongFact for long-form factuality evaluation and used Google Search as the grounding source and LLM for the automated judgement, to achieve human-level accuracy but with significantly lower cost (Min et al., 2023).