mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization on Customer Feedback

arXiv 2106.16188 ↗First posted 30 Jun 2021cs.CL cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

E-commerce stores collect customer feedback to let sellers learn about customer concerns and enhance customer order experience. Because customer feedback often contains redundant information, a concise summary of the feedback can be generated to help sellers better understand the issues causing customer dissatisfaction. Previous state-of-the-art abstractive text summarization models make two major types of factual errors when producing summaries from customer feedback, which are wrong entity detection (WED) and incorrect product-defect description (IPD). In this work, we introduce a set of methods to enhance the factual consistency of abstractive summarization on customer feedback. We augment the training data with artificially corrupted summaries, and use them as counterparts of the target summaries. We add a contrastive loss term into the training objective so that the model learns to avoid certain factual errors. Evaluation results show that a large portion of WED and IPD errors are alleviated for BART and T5. Furthermore, our approaches do not depend on the structure of the summarization model and thus are generalizable to any abstractive summarization systems.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jun 2021.

Builds on

18 of 24 references.

References · 18

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  2. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  3. 2015FaceNet: A Unified Embedding for Face Recognition and Clusteringcited by 2,833
  4. 2020Supervised Contrastive Learningcited by 2,803
  5. 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,100
  6. 2016Abstractive Text Summarization Using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyondcited by 809
  7. 2019Unified Language Model Pre-training for Natural Language Understanding and Generationcited by 668
  8. 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 578
  9. 2020Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summariescited by 376
  10. 2020UniLMv2: Pseudo-Masked Language Models for Unified Language Model Pre-Trainingcited by 204
  11. 2019Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluationcited by 189
  12. 2017Faithful to the Original: Fact Aware Neural Abstractive Summarizationcited by 141
6 more
  1. 2020GSum: A General Framework for Guided Neural Abstractive Summarizationcited by 129
  2. 2020Factual Error Correction for Abstractive Summarization Modelscited by 108
  3. 2020Multi-Fact Correction in Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 66
  4. 2017Text Summarization Techniques: A Brief Surveycited by 59
  5. 2020Constrained Abstractive Summarization: Preserving Factual Consistency with Constrained Generationcited by 26
  6. 2020From Standard Summarization to New Tasks and Beyond: Summarization with Manifold Informationcited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.

3 papers.