CoP: Factual Inconsistency Detection by Controlling the Preference
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
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,893
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,915
- 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
- 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,317
- 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,102
- 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 900
- 2019SpanBERT: Improving Pre-training by Representing and Predicting Spanscited by 834
- 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
- 2021GPT Understands, Toocited by 716
8 more
- 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 584
- 2020Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summariescited by 378
- 2021Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metricscited by 287
- 2022BRIO: Bringing Order to Abstractive Summarizationcited by 161
- 2020Detecting Hallucinated Content in Conditional Neural Sequence Generationcited by 152
- 2021Annotating and Modeling Fine-grained Factuality in Summarizationcited by 131
- 2019Assessing The Factual Accuracy of Generated Textcited by 103
- 2021Factual Consistency Evaluation for Text Summarization via Counterfactual Estimationcited by 37
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 2.
4 papers.
- 2023Zero-shot Faithfulness Evaluation for Text Summarization with Foundation Language Modelcited by 21
- 2023Improving Factual Consistency for Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Systems via Knowledge Enhancement and Alignmentcited by 19
- 2024UAlign: Leveraging Uncertainty Estimations for Factuality Alignment on Large Language Modelscited by 13
- 2024Language Models can Evaluate Themselves via Probability Discrepancycited by 5
- 2024UAlign: Leveraging Uncertainty Estimations for Factuality Alignment on Large Language Models16 Dec 2024
- 2024Language Models can Evaluate Themselves via Probability Discrepancy17 May 2024
- 2023Zero-shot Faithfulness Evaluation for Text Summarization with Foundation Language Model18 Oct 2023
- 2023Improving Factual Consistency for Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue Systems via Knowledge Enhancement and Alignment12 Oct 2023