# Probing of Quantitative Values in Abstractive Summarization Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.00667 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.00667/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 42 of its 66 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Oct 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 42)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01703/) (2019)
- [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)
- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [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)
- [BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.05950/) (2019)
- [Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehend](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.03340/) (2015)
- [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)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01070/) (2018)
- [SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09525/) (2021)
- [Linguistic Knowledge and Transferability of Contextual Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.08855/) (2019)
- [Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04228/) (2020)
- [Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependencies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.01368/) (2016)
- [Good Debt or Bad Debt: Detecting Semantic Orientations in Economic Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1307.5336/) (2013)
- [FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.03754/) (2020)
- [Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.13346/) (2021)
- [ProphetNet: Predicting Future N-gram for Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.04063/) (2020)
- [Fine-grained Analysis of Sentence Embeddings Using Auxiliary Prediction Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.04207/) (2016)
- [Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.08960/) (2019)
- [Do NLP Models Know Numbers? Probing Numeracy in Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.07940/) (2019)
- [Detecting Hallucinated Content in Conditional Neural Sequence Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.02593/) (2020)
- [Faithful to the Original: Fact Aware Neural Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.04434/) (2017)
- [Open Sesame: Getting Inside BERT's Linguistic Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.01698/) (2019)
- [Entity-level Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09130/) (2021)
- [Sharp Nearby, Fuzzy Far Away: How Neural Language Models Use Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.04623/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Abstractive text summarization has recently become a popular approach, but data hallucination remains a serious problem, including with quantitative data. We propose a set of probing tests to evaluate the efficacy of abstract summarization models' modeling of quantitative values found in the input text. Our results show that in most cases, the encoders of recent SOTA-performing models struggle to provide embeddings that adequately represent quantitative values in the input compared to baselines, and in particular, they outperform random representations in some, but surprisingly not all, cases. Under our assumptions, this suggests that the encoder's performance contributes to the quantity hallucination problem. One model type in particular, DistilBART-CDM, was observed to underperform randomly initialized representations for several experiments, and performance versus BERT suggests that standard pretraining and fine-tuning approaches for the summarization task may play a role in underperformance for some encoders.