mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating the Factuality of Zero-shot Summarizers Across Varied Domains

arXiv 2402.03509 ↗First posted 5 Feb 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent work has shown that large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating summaries zero-shot (i.e., without explicit supervision) that, under human assessment, are often comparable or even preferred to manually composed reference summaries. However, this prior work has focussed almost exclusively on evaluating news article summarization. How do zero-shot summarizers perform in other (potentially more specialized) domains? In this work we evaluate zero-shot generated summaries across specialized domains including biomedical articles, and legal bills (in addition to standard news benchmarks for reference). We focus especially on the factuality of outputs. We acquire annotations from domain experts to identify inconsistencies in summaries and systematically categorize these errors. We analyze whether the prevalence of a given domain in the pretraining corpus affects extractiveness and faithfulness of generated summaries of articles in this domain. We release all collected annotations to facilitate additional research toward measuring and realizing factually accurate summarization, beyond news articles. The dataset can be downloaded from https://github.com/sanjanaramprasad/zero_shot_faceval_domains

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2024.

Builds on

23 of 34 references.

References · 23

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  3. 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 2,997
  4. 2018Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarizationcited by 1,308
  5. 2015Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehendcited by 1,039
  6. 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 578
  7. 2018A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documentscited by 477
  8. 2023Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarizationcited by 444
  9. 2021SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarizationcited by 402
  10. 2020Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summariescited by 376
  11. 2022News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3cited by 324
  12. 2021Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metricscited by 285
11 more
  1. 2021QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluationcited by 241
  2. 2021QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarizationcited by 233
  3. 2021Annotating and Modeling Fine-grained Factuality in Summarizationcited by 131
  4. 2021Hallucinated but Factual! Inspecting the Factuality of Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 128
  5. 2020Evaluating Factuality in Generation with Dependency-level Entailmentcited by 122
  6. 2021CLIFF: Contrastive Learning for Improving Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 120
  7. 2019BillSum: A Corpus for Automatic Summarization of US Legislationcited by 117
  8. 2022Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectorscited by 103
  9. 2023ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarizationcited by 75
  10. 2020What Have We Achieved on Text Summarization?cited by 65
  11. 2023Summarizing, Simplifying, and Synthesizing Medical Evidence Using GPT-3 (with Varying Success)cited by 40

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

10 papers.