mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

CaPE: Contrastive Parameter Ensembling for Reducing Hallucination in Abstractive Summarization

arXiv 2110.07166 ↗First posted 14 Oct 2021cs.CLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Hallucination is a known issue for neural abstractive summarization models. Recent work suggests that the degree of hallucination may depend on errors in the training data. In this work, we propose a new method called Contrastive Parameter Ensembling (CaPE) to use training data more effectively, utilizing variations in noise in training samples to reduce hallucination. We first select clean and noisy subsets from the training data using different automatic factual metrics. Then, we fine-tune a base summarization model, which is trained on all training samples, on the clean (noisy) subset to obtain an textitexpert (textitanti-expert) model. Finally, we adjust the parameters of base model by the difference between parameters of the textitexpert and textitanti-expert models, steering the base model towards the textitexpert model and away from the textitanti-expert model. Experimental results show that CaPE improves performance across different automatic factual metrics and human evaluation, with the maximum improvement of 16.69% and 15.78% on summary-level dependency-arc entailment accuracy for the XSUM and CNN/DM datasets. The improvement in factual performance does not degrade the performance on other metrics of informativeness such as ROUGE.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2021.

Builds on

44 of 59 references.

References · 44

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  4. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  5. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  6. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
  7. 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,308
  8. 2018Averaging Weights Leads to Wider Optima and Better Generalizationcited by 1,194
  9. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
  10. 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 895
  11. 2021Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot modelscited by 785
  12. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
32 more
  1. 2019Linear Mode Connectivity and the Lottery Ticket Hypothesiscited by 627
  2. 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 578
  3. 2021DExperts: Decoding-Time Controlled Text Generation with Experts and Anti-Expertscited by 434
  4. 2020GeDi: Generative Discriminator Guided Sequence Generationcited by 377
  5. 2020Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summariescited by 376
  6. 2020What is being transferred in transfer learning?cited by 365
  7. 2020FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 292
  8. 2021Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metricscited by 285
  9. 2021QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluationcited by 241
  10. 2020Detecting Hallucinated Content in Conditional Neural Sequence Generationcited by 151
  11. 2020NeuroLogic Decoding: (Un)supervised Neural Text Generation with Predicate Logic Constraintscited by 146
  12. 2021Annotating and Modeling Fine-grained Factuality in Summarizationcited by 131
  13. 2021Hallucinated but Factual! Inspecting the Factuality of Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 128
  14. 2020Evaluating Factuality in Generation with Dependency-level Entailmentcited by 122
  15. 2021CLIFF: Contrastive Learning for Improving Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 120
  16. 2021Entity-level Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 118
  17. 2020Factual Error Correction for Abstractive Summarization Modelscited by 108
  18. 2019Answers Unite! Unsupervised Metrics for Reinforced Summarization Modelscited by 92
  19. 2020Controlled Hallucinations: Learning to Generate Faithfully from Noisy Datacited by 83
  20. 2016Edinburgh Neural Machine Translation Systems for WMT 16cited by 76
  21. 2020Improved Natural Language Generation via Loss Truncationcited by 75
  22. 2020GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarizationcited by 75
  23. 2021Planning with Learned Entity Prompts for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 75
  24. 2021Improving Faithfulness in Abstractive Summarization with Contrast Candidate Generation and Selectioncited by 75
  25. 2020Multi-Fact Correction in Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 66
  26. 2019Question Answering as an Automatic Evaluation Metric for News Article Summarizationcited by 63
  27. 2021Focus Attention: Promoting Faithfulness and Diversity in Summarizationcited by 30
  28. 2020Constrained Abstractive Summarization: Preserving Factual Consistency with Constrained Generationcited by 26
  29. 2020Improving Truthfulness of Headline Generationcited by 20
  30. 2021How well do you know your summarization datasets?cited by 16
  31. 2020Attention over Parameters for Dialogue Systemscited by 14
  32. 2021Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization on Customer Feedbackcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 6; 2025: 2.

11 papers.