# QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.12693 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.12693/

## Key facts

- Cited by 244 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 27 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.13461/) (2019)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09751/) (2019)
- [HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.03771/) (2019)
- [CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1411.5726/) (2014)
- [Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuAD](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.03822/) (2018)
- [Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08745/) (2018)
- [PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.08777/) (2019)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [Abstractive Text Summarization Using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.06023/) (2016)
- [SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12626/) (2020)
- [Object Hallucination in Image Captioning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.02156/) (2018)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04228/) (2020)
- [A Deep Reinforced Model for Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.04304/) (2017)
- [NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.09830/) (2016)
- [FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.03754/) (2020)
- [Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06875/) (2017)
- [Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.08960/) (2019)
- [Answers Unite! Unsupervised Metrics for Reinforced Summarization Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01610/) (2019)
- [Neural Question Generation from Text: A Preliminary Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.01792/) (2017)
- [Question Answering as an Automatic Evaluation Metric for News Article Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.00318/) (2019)
- [A Semantic QA-Based Approach for Text Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.06259/) (2017)
- [Metrics also Disagree in the Low Scoring Range: Revisiting Summarization Evaluation Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.04096/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 244)

- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09525/) (2021)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.12356/) (2022)
- [AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with a Unified Alignment Function](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16739/) (2023)
- [Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07197/) (2022)
- [LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02707/) (2024)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.08542/) (2021)
- [Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.05904/) (2024)
- [LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13281/) (2023)
- [Repairing the Cracked Foundation: A Survey of Obstacles in Evaluation Practices for Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.06935/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01724/) (2024)
- [Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with Robust Human Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07981/) (2022)
- [Q2: Evaluating Factual Consistency in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogues via Question Generation and Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08202/) (2021)
- [CLIFF: Contrastive Learning for Improving Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.09209/) (2021)
- [WiCE: Real-World Entailment for Claims in Wikipedia](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.01432/) (2023)
- [What You See is What You Read? Improving Text-Image Alignment Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10400/) (2023)
- [Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12854/) (2022)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Large Language Models Through News Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.08412/) (2022)
- [A Comprehensive Assessment of Dialog Evaluation Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.03706/) (2021)
- [LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09766/) (2023)
- [PEER: A Collaborative Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.11663/) (2022)
- [TrueTeacher: Learning Factual Consistency Evaluation with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11171/) (2023)
- [FineSurE: Fine-grained Summarization Evaluation using LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00908/) (2024)
- [LLM Internal States Reveal Hallucination Risk Faced With a Query](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.03282/) (2024)
- [Language Generation Models Can Cause Harm: So What Can We Do About It? An Actionable Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07700/) (2022)
- [ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15621/) (2023)
- [Factually Consistent Summarization via Reinforcement Learning with Textual Entailment Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00186/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Summarization evaluation remains an open research problem: current metrics such as ROUGE are known to be limited and to correlate poorly with human judgments. To alleviate this issue, recent work has proposed evaluation metrics which rely on question answering models to assess whether a summary contains all the relevant information in its source document. Though promising, the proposed approaches have so far failed to correlate better than ROUGE with human judgments. In this paper, we extend previous approaches and propose a unified framework, named QuestEval. In contrast to established metrics such as ROUGE or BERTScore, QuestEval does not require any ground-truth reference. Nonetheless, QuestEval substantially improves the correlation with human judgments over four evaluation dimensions (consistency, coherence, fluency, and relevance), as shown in the extensive experiments we report.