Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in text understanding and generation. However, they often lack factuality, producing a mixture of true and false information, especially in long-form generation. In this work, we investigates the factuality of long-form text generation across various large language models (LLMs), including GPT-4, Gemini-1.5-Pro, Claude-3-Opus, Llama-3-70B, and Mistral. Our analysis reveals that factuality tend to decline in later sentences of the generated text, accompanied by a rise in the number of unsupported claims. Furthermore, we explore the effectiveness of different evaluation settings to assess whether LLMs can accurately judge the correctness of their own outputs: Self-Known (the percentage of supported atomic claims, decomposed from LLM outputs, that the corresponding LLMs judge as correct) and Self-Unknown (the percentage of unsupported atomic claims that the corresponding LLMs judge as incorrect). The results indicate that even advanced models fail to achieve perfect Self-Known scores, while their Self-Unknown scores remain notably above zero, reflecting ongoing uncertainty in their self-assessments. Moreover, we find a correlation between higher Self-Known scores and improved factuality, while higher Self-Unknown scores are associated with lower factuality. Even without significant changes in the models’ self-judgment (Self-Known and Self-Unknown), the number of unsupported claims can increases, likely as an artifact of long-form generation. Additional Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) experiments also show the limitations of current LLMs in long-form generation, and provide the more research is needed to improve factuality in long-form text generation.