# Factual consistency evaluation of summarization in the Era of large language models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13758 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13758/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 32 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Feb 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 32)

- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.13461/) (2019)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.08745/) (2018)
- [Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.04368/) (2017)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.08777/) (2019)
- [Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehend](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.03340/) (2015)
- [SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08896/) (2023)
- [SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12626/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13848/) (2023)
- [Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04048/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Quality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.14520/) (2023)
- [SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09525/) (2021)
- [Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04228/) (2020)
- [HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11747/) (2023)
- [News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.12356/) (2022)
- [How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowball](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13534/) (2023)
- [FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.03754/) (2020)
- [Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.13346/) (2021)
- [QuestEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.12693/) (2021)
- [QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.08542/) (2021)
- [Bottom-Up Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.10792/) (2018)
- [Orca 2: Teaching Small Language Models How to Reason](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.11045/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Factuality in Generation with Dependency-level Entailment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.05478/) (2020)
- [Entity-level Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09130/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [How Trustworthy Are LLM-as-Judge Ratings for Interpretive Responses? Implications for Qualitative Research Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.00008/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Factual inconsistency with source documents in automatically generated summaries can lead to misinformation or pose risks. Existing factual consistency (FC) metrics are constrained by their performance, efficiency, and explainability. Recent advances in Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in text evaluation but their effectiveness in assessing FC in summarization remains underexplored. Prior research has mostly focused on proprietary LLMs, leaving essential factors that affect their assessment capabilities unexplored. Additionally, current FC evaluation benchmarks are restricted to news articles, casting doubt on the generality of the FC methods tested on them. In this paper, we first address the gap by introducing TreatFact a dataset of LLM-generated summaries of clinical texts, annotated for FC by domain experts. Moreover, we benchmark 11 LLMs for FC evaluation across news and clinical domains and analyse the impact of model size, prompts, pre-training and fine-tuning data. Our findings reveal that despite proprietary models prevailing on the task, open-source LLMs lag behind. Nevertheless, there is potential for enhancing the performance of open-source LLMs through increasing model size, expanding pre-training data, and developing well-curated fine-tuning data. Experiments on TreatFact suggest that both previous methods and LLM-based evaluators are unable to capture factual inconsistencies in clinical summaries, posing a new challenge for FC evaluation.