mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AMRFact: Enhancing Summarization Factuality Evaluation with AMR-Driven Negative Samples Generation

arXiv 2311.09521 ↗First posted 16 Nov 2023cs.CLcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Ensuring factual consistency is crucial for natural language generation tasks, particularly in abstractive summarization, where preserving the integrity of information is paramount. Prior works on evaluating factual consistency of summarization often take the entailment-based approaches that first generate perturbed (factual inconsistent) summaries and then train a classifier on the generated data to detect the factually inconsistencies during testing time. However, previous approaches generating perturbed summaries are either of low coherence or lack error-type coverage. To address these issues, we propose AMRFact, a framework that generates perturbed summaries using Abstract Meaning Representations (AMRs). Our approach parses factually consistent summaries into AMR graphs and injects controlled factual inconsistencies to create negative examples, allowing for coherent factually inconsistent summaries to be generated with high error-type coverage. Additionally, we present a data selection module NegFilter based on natural language inference and BARTScore to ensure the quality of the generated negative samples. Experimental results demonstrate our approach significantly outperforms previous systems on the AggreFact-SOTA benchmark, showcasing its efficacy in evaluating factuality of abstractive summarization.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 44 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Nov 2023.

Builds on

44 of 52 references.

References · 44

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
  4. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
  5. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  6. 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,281
  7. 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,259
  8. 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,100
  9. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
  10. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  11. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 666
  12. 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 578
32 more
  1. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  2. 2021SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarizationcited by 402
  3. 2020Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summariescited by 376
  4. 2021Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metricscited by 285
  5. 2023AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with a Unified Alignment Functioncited by 284
  6. 2021QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluationcited by 241
  7. 2021QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarizationcited by 233
  8. 2021Annotating and Modeling Fine-grained Factuality in Summarizationcited by 131
  9. 2021Hallucinated but Factual! Inspecting the Factuality of Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 128
  10. 2020Evaluating Factuality in Generation with Dependency-level Entailmentcited by 122
  11. 2021CLIFF: Contrastive Learning for Improving Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 120
  12. 2020Investigating Pretrained Language Models for Graph-to-Text Generationcited by 117
  13. 2019Assessing The Factual Accuracy of Generated Textcited by 103
  14. 2022Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectorscited by 103
  15. 2023TrueTeacher: Learning Factual Consistency Evaluation with Large Language Modelscited by 82
  16. 2021DocNLI: A Large-scale Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inferencecited by 75
  17. 2023ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarizationcited by 75
  18. 2020What Have We Achieved on Text Summarization?cited by 65
  19. 2023FactKB: Generalizable Factuality Evaluation using Language Models Enhanced with Factual Knowledgecited by 55
  20. 2022FactPEGASUS: Factuality-Aware Pre-training and Fine-tuning for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 49
  21. 2022BERTScore is Unfair: On Social Bias in Language Model-Based Metrics for Text Generationcited by 48
  22. 2022Faking Fake News for Real Fake News Detection: Propaganda-loaded Training Data Generationcited by 41
  23. 2022FactGraph: Evaluating Factuality in Summarization with Semantic Graph Representationscited by 41
  24. 2019Semantic Neural Machine Translation using AMRcited by 37
  25. 2023LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyondcited by 37
  26. 2022Falsesum: Generating Document-level NLI Examples for Recognizing Factual Inconsistency in Summarizationcited by 34
  27. 2023Zero-shot Faithful Factual Error Correctioncited by 26
  28. 2022DEAM: Dialogue Coherence Evaluation using AMR-based Semantic Manipulationscited by 25
  29. 2023Gender Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioningcited by 24
  30. 2022Faithful to the Document or to the World? Mitigating Hallucinations via Entity-linked Knowledge in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 20
  31. 2023Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarizationcited by 6
  32. 2021An analysis of document graph construction methods for AMR summarizationcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

10 papers.