mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Automatic Logical Forms improve fidelity in Table-to-Text generation

arXiv 2310.17279 ↗First posted 26 Oct 2023cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Table-to-text systems generate natural language statements from structured data like tables. While end-to-end techniques suffer from low factual correctness (fidelity), a previous study reported gains when using manual logical forms (LF) that represent the selected content and the semantics of the target text. Given the manual step, it was not clear whether automatic LFs would be effective, or whether the improvement came from content selection alone. We present TlT which, given a table and a selection of the content, first produces LFs and then the textual statement. We show for the first time that automatic LFs improve quality, with an increase in fidelity of 30 points over a comparable system not using LFs. Our experiments allow to quantify the remaining challenges for high factual correctness, with automatic selection of content coming first, followed by better Logic-to-Text generation and, to a lesser extent, better Table-to-Logic parsing.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Oct 2023.

Builds on

31 of 48 references.

References · 31

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  4. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,512
  5. 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 900
  6. 2015Pointer Networkscited by 895
  7. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 722
  8. 2017Six Challenges for Neural Machine Translationcited by 335
  9. 2017Challenges in Data-to-Document Generationcited by 226
  10. 2019Towards Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Database with Intermediate Representationcited by 210
  11. 2017Survey of the State of the Art in Natural Language Generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluationcited by 206
  12. 2021NeuroLogic A*esque Decoding: Constrained Text Generation with Lookahead Heuristicscited by 154
19 more
  1. 2018Data-to-Text Generation with Content Selection and Planningcited by 106
  2. 2020Logical Natural Language Generation from Open-Domain Tablescited by 90
  3. 2019Sticking to the Facts: Confident Decoding for Faithful Data-to-Text Generationcited by 62
  4. 2018Learning Neural Templates for Text Generationcited by 61
  5. 2021HTLM: Hyper-Text Pre-Training and Prompting of Language Modelscited by 58
  6. 2017Table-to-text Generation by Structure-aware Seq2seq Learningcited by 54
  7. 2021Plan-then-Generate: Controlled Data-to-Text Generation via Planningcited by 52
  8. 2020Towards Faithful Neural Table-to-Text Generation with Content-Matching Constraintscited by 48
  9. 2019Data-to-text Generation with Entity Modelingcited by 45
  10. 2020Logic2Text: High-Fidelity Natural Language Generation from Logical Formscited by 45
  11. 2020Have Your Text and Use It Too! End-to-End Neural Data-to-Text Generation with Semantic Fidelitycited by 35
  12. 2022Human Evaluation and Correlation with Automatic Metrics in Consultation Note Generationcited by 33
  13. 2020Neural Data-to-Text Generation via Jointly Learning the Segmentation and Correspondencecited by 25
  14. 2017Order-Planning Neural Text Generation From Structured Datacited by 20
  15. 2019A Hierarchical Model for Data-to-Text Generationcited by 20
  16. 2020Improving Truthfulness of Headline Generationcited by 20
  17. 2022Neural Pipeline for Zero-Shot Data-to-Text Generationcited by 19
  18. 2020Posterior Control of Blackbox Generationcited by 16
  19. 2020ColloQL: Robust Cross-Domain Text-to-SQL Over Search Queriescited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

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

2 papers.