Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarization (2023.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing factual consistency evaluation approaches for text summarization provide binary predictions and limited insights into the weakness of summarizing systems. |
| Approach: | They propose a task of fine-grained inconsistency detection to detect inconsistent summaries . they represent facts with semantic frames extracted by semantic role labeling and highlight related semantic frames to predict inconsistance . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms baseline models and provides evidence to support or refute the summary. |
Similar Papers
SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization (2022.tacl-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have shown that even state-of-the-art pre-trained language models can generate inconsistent summaries in more than 70% of all cases. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that enables NLI models to be used for inconsistency detection by segmenting documents into sentence units and aggregating scores between pairs of sentences. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method achieves state-of-the-art accuracy of 74.4% on six large inconsistency detection datasets. |
Discourse-Driven Evaluation: Unveiling Factual Inconsistency in Long Document Summarization (2025.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing summarization systems can generate fluent summaries, but their ability to produce factually consistent summary remains questionable. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that decomposes long texts into discourse-inspired chunks and utilizes discourse information to better aggregate sentence-level scores predicted by NLI models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework shows better performance over multiple benchmarks, focusing on long document summarization. |
Fine-grained Factual Consistency Assessment for Abstractive Summarization Models (2021.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have shown that around 30% of the summaries generated by abstractive summarization models contain factual errors. |
| Approach: | They propose a fine-grained two-stage Fact Consistency assessment framework for summarization models that uses fine-grain consistency reasoning to find subtle clues to identify whether a model-generated summary is consistent with the original document. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework improves on the state-of-the-art models and distinguishes detailed differences better. |
Annotating and Detecting Fine-grained Factual Errors for Dialogue Summarization (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on factual inconsistency in abstractive summarization addresses this problem. |
| Approach: | They propose a dataset with fine-grained factual error annotations named DIASUMFACT and an unsupervised model named ENDERANKER. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs on par with the state-of-the-art models while requiring fewer resources. |
SummaCoz: A Dataset for Improving the Interpretability of Factual Consistency Detection for Summarization (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Summarization is an important application of Large Language Models. |
| Approach: | They integrate human-annotated and model-generated natural language explanations to elucidate how a summary deviates and becomes inconsistent with its source article. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model provides rationales for its judgments and improves its accuracy significantly. |
Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a weakly-supervised approach is needed to verify factual consistency . auxiliary span extraction tasks are useful for verifying factual consistent summaries . |
| Approach: | They propose a weakly-supervised approach for verifying factual consistency . they transfer the model to summaries generated by several neural models . |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms models trained with strong supervision on source documents and human evaluations. |
FIZZ: Factual Inconsistency Detection by Zoom-in Summary and Zoom-out Document (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for evaluating factual consistency in abstractive summarization systems have significant limitations, especially on refinement and interpretability. |
| Approach: | They propose a method for detecting summary factual inconsistency based on fine-grained atomic facts decomposition and adaptive granularity expansion. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method outperforms existing systems on the AGGREFACT benchmark dataset and achieves state-of-the-art performance. |
Factual Consistency Evaluation for Text Summarization via Counterfactual Estimation (2021.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to evaluate factual consistency in text summarization neglect the intrinsic cause of factual inconsistency or rely on auxiliary tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a method to evaluate the factual consistency in text summarization via counterfactual estimation, which formulates the causal relationship between source document, generated summary, and the language prior. |
| Outcome: | The proposed metric improves correlation with human judgments and convenience of usage on three public abstractive text summarization datasets. |
Summary Factual Inconsistency Detection Based on LLMs Enhanced by Universal Information Extraction (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies have shown that Large language models can detect factual inconsistencies in summaries but they lack the efficiency and explainability needed to be effective. |
| Approach: | They propose to decouple LLMs’ information extraction and reasoning capabilities to address key challenges and propose a framework for UIEFID to guide fine-tuned LLM methods in extracting unified structured information from documents and summaries. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework improves the detection accuracy and reduces redundant reasoning on the AGGREFACT benchmark. |
Annotating and Modeling Fine-grained Factuality in Summarization (2021.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent abstractive summarization systems produce factual errors that are not faithful to the input . current methods are lacking in identifying what errors are most important to target . |
| Approach: | They use synthetic and human-labeled data to identify factual errors in summarization and train models on the factuality detection task. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model detects factual errors on word, dependency, and sentence levels. |