Detecting Errors through Ensembling Prompts (DEEP): An End-to-End LLM Framework for Detecting Factual Errors
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Accurate text summarization is one of the most common and important tasks performed by Large Language Models, where the costs of human review for an entire document may be high, but the costs of errors in summarization may be even greater. We propose Detecting Errors through Ensembling Prompts (DEEP) - an end-to-end large language model framework for detecting factual errors in text summarization. Our framework uses a diverse set of LLM prompts to identify factual inconsistencies, treating their outputs as binary features, which are then fed into ensembling models. We then calibrate the ensembled models to produce empirically accurate probabilities that a text is factually consistent or free of hallucination. We demonstrate that prior models for detecting factual errors in summaries perform significantly worse without optimizing the thresholds on subsets of the evaluated dataset. Our framework achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) balanced accuracy on the AggreFact-XSUM FTSOTA, TofuEval Summary-Level, and HaluEval Summarization benchmarks in detecting factual errors within transformer-generated text summaries. It does so without any fine-tuning of the language model or reliance on thresholding techniques not available in practical settings.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2024.
Builds on
23 of 42 references.
References · 23
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 974
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 812
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 751
- 2019Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarizationcited by 584
- 2020How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answeringcited by 445
- 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 422
- 2021SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarizationcited by 407
- 2021Revisiting the Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 390
- 2017Snorkel: Rapid Training Data Creation with Weak Supervisioncited by 372
- 2016Data Programming: Creating Large Training Sets, Quicklycited by 246
11 more
- 2021QAFactEval: Improved QA-Based Factual Consistency Evaluation for Summarizationcited by 236
- 2021Annotating and Modeling Fine-grained Factuality in Summarizationcited by 131
- 2018Training Complex Models with Multi-Task Weak Supervisioncited by 106
- 2021MediaSum: A Large-scale Media Interview Dataset for Dialogue Summarizationcited by 104
- 2022Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectorscited by 104
- 2020Fast and Three-rious: Speeding Up Weak Supervision with Triplet Methodscited by 98
- 2021WRENCH: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Weak Supervisioncited by 96
- 2023MeetingBank: A Benchmark Dataset for Meeting Summarizationcited by 84
- 2023ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarizationcited by 75
- 2024TofuEval: Evaluating Hallucinations of LLMs on Topic-Focused Dialogue Summarizationcited by 66
- 2018Learning to Evaluate Image Captioningcited by 53
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.