mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CoP: Factual Inconsistency Detection by Controlling the Preference

arXiv 2212.01611 ↗First posted 3 Dec 2022cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Abstractive summarization is the process of generating a summary given a document as input. Although significant progress has been made, the factual inconsistency between the document and the generated summary still limits its practical applications. Previous work found that the probabilities assigned by the generation model reflect its preferences for the generated summary, including the preference for factual consistency, and the preference for the language or knowledge prior as well. To separate the preference for factual consistency, we propose an unsupervised framework named CoP by controlling the preference of the generation model with the help of prompt. More specifically, the framework performs an extra inference step in which a text prompt is introduced as an additional input. In this way, another preference is described by the generation probability of this extra inference process. The difference between the above two preferences, i.e. the difference between the probabilities, could be used as measurements for detecting factual inconsistencies. Interestingly, we found that with the properly designed prompt, our framework could evaluate specific preferences and serve as measurements for fine-grained categories of inconsistency, such as entity-related inconsistency, coreference-related inconsistency, etc. Moreover, our framework could also be extended to the supervised setting to learn better prompt from the labeled data as well. Experiments show that our framework achieves new SOTA results on three factual inconsistency detection tasks.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Dec 2022.

Builds on

20 of 24 references.

References · 20

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  3. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,893
  4. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  5. 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,915
  6. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
  7. 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,317
  8. 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,102
  9. 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 900
  10. 2019SpanBERT: Improving Pre-training by Representing and Predicting Spanscited by 834
  11. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
  12. 2021GPT Understands, Toocited by 716
8 more
  1. 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 584
  2. 2020Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summariescited by 378
  3. 2021Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metricscited by 287
  4. 2022BRIO: Bringing Order to Abstractive Summarizationcited by 161
  5. 2020Detecting Hallucinated Content in Conditional Neural Sequence Generationcited by 152
  6. 2021Annotating and Modeling Fine-grained Factuality in Summarizationcited by 131
  7. 2019Assessing The Factual Accuracy of Generated Textcited by 103
  8. 2021Factual Consistency Evaluation for Text Summarization via Counterfactual Estimationcited by 37

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 2.

4 papers.