Evaluating Factuality
A resource hub for measuring groundedness, answer reliability, source quality, and the operational security side of factuality failures.
Treating factuality as a UX issue when it can become a control failure.
Weak source grounding in assistants touching financial, legal, or operational decisions.
Missing the security impact of confident but wrong outputs.
Built For
Teams deploying assistants that make or summarize high-trust claims.
Practitioners balancing product utility with reliability.
Security reviewers connecting hallucinations to real workflow harm.
Use Cases
Define what factuality means for your workflow, not just for a generic benchmark.
Measure groundedness in retrieval, summarization, and answer generation.
Tie factuality quality to security and governance decisions.
Related Content
What is a Vector Database? Its Role in AI and LLM Security
How do Vector Databases, the heart of modern AI (LLM) projects, actually work? Discover everything you need to know to prevent data leakage and...
AI Compliance Crisis: Navigating GDPR/KVKK in RAG Architectures
Discover the severe data privacy risks of Enterprise RAG models. Learn how to align Large Language Models with GDPR mandates like the 'Right to be...
AI Safety vs. AI Security: Understanding the Fundamental Differences in Enterprise ML
Discover the critical distinctions between AI Safety (protecting humans from AI) and AI Security (protecting AI from malicious threat actors and hackers).
Related Advisories
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is factuality in a security resource section?
Because in many environments factuality failures become operational, regulatory, or safety failures rather than just bad UX.
Does this overlap with RAG evaluation?
Yes, but factuality is broader. It includes any answer that must remain grounded in verifiable source material.
Need help validating this attack surface?
Talk with Eresus Security about scoped testing, threat modeling, and remediation priorities for this workflow.
Talk to Eresus